Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 510 (JHR)

Deepak Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2024-05-15

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents particularly respondent no.5 to adjust the petitioner on the post of Clerk in view of the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.3305/2008 earlier preferred by the petitioner and to allow him to join the said post at suitable place. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay all monetary benefits of the said post to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk vide order as contained in memo no.1138 dated 30.08.1978 issued by the In-charge, Medical Officer, District Family Planning Bureau, Munger and he joined at Primary Health Centre, Rani Shakarpura, District- Khagaria. Subsequently, he was transferred to the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sahibganj-the respondent no.5, by the order as contained in letter no.699 dated 02.09.1989 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur where he joined on 07.11.1989, but he was not posted at any place. Aggrieved thereby and for release of salary, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being CWJC No.5152/1991, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.1991 directing the concerned authorities to pay the arrears of salary till December, 1989 and to take appropriate action within a period of two months in accordance with law by complying the principles of natural justice, if they were of the view that the original appointment of the petitioner was irregular. The petitioner filed representation with all the relevant documents such as appointment letter, transfer letter, relieving letter as well as the order passed by the Patna High Court, however, no action was taken. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition being W.P. (S) No.3305 of 2008 before this Court, which was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2019 directing the respondent no.1 of the said case i.e. Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand to consider the case of the petitioner after providing him an opportunity of hearing and to pass reasoned/speaking order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the said order. 4. 4. It is also submitted that the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 05.09.2019 requested the Director In-Chief (Health Services), Jharkhand to pass an order in accordance with law, however, no action was taken by the said authority. The petitioner is the victim of circumstances and he has been deprived of the posting for such a long period even after repeated directions issued by the High Court of Judicature at Patna as well as this Court and the request of the Deputy Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand made to the Director In-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand has already passed a reasoned order vide memo no.294 dated 11.11.2019 after hearing the petitioner whereby his claim has been rejected stating inter alia that the petitioner had neither worked in any office nor had been paid salary from anywhere. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the reasoned order as contained in memo no. 294 dated 11.11.2019 and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, several forged appointments were made in the Health Department of erstwhile State of Bihar. Under the said situation, the then Health Commissioner, Government of Bihar had issued memo no. 696 (22) dated 19.06.1996 to take action against the persons who were appointed on the basis of forged letters. 6. It is also submitted that the alleged appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 30.08.1978. Since then, 45 years have already elapsed. Even if it is assumed that he was appointed at minimum age of 18 years, his present age should be more than 63 years. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner’s prayer being a frivolous one, is liable to be rejected. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C No. 5152 of 1991 and the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3305 of 2008, the petitioner was not adjusted on the post of clerk. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C No. 5152 of 1991 and the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3305 of 2008, the petitioner was not adjusted on the post of clerk. 9. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has perused the order passed in C.W.J.C No. 5152 of 1991 from which it transpires that the respondent-State of Bihar having doubted the validity of the initial appointment of the petitioner, the Bench was of the opinion that the petitioner could not have been deprived of his salary or posting merely because the original appointment could have been irregular and if the government was of the opinion that the initial appointment of the petitioner might be illegal, an appropriate action in accordance with law should have been taken. The Bench however, directed the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner till December, 1989 without going into the merits of the case, particularly on the question as to whether the appointment or transfer of the petitioner was valid in law. 10. This Court has also perused the order passed in W.P.(S) No.3305 of 2008, wherein the Bench had not entered into the disputed question of fact raised by the parties and had directed the respondent no.1 to pass reasoned/speaking order in accordance with law. Thus, both in C.W.J.C No. 5152 of 1991 and W.P. (S) No. 3305 of 2008, the learned Benches did not decide the case of the parties on merit. 11. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P. (S) No.3305 of 2008, the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand has passed a reasoned order vide memo no. 294 dated 11.11.2019, wherein it has been observed that the claim of appointment made by the petitioner after a huge delay and without any concrete evidence cannot be accepted. It has also been observed in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by the competent authority. Moreover, his LPC and service book were not made available to the office of the Civil Surgeon, Sahibganj after his transfer. 12. It has also been observed in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by the competent authority. Moreover, his LPC and service book were not made available to the office of the Civil Surgeon, Sahibganj after his transfer. 12. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has annexed only the photo copy of the appointment order as contained in memo no.1138 dated 30.08.1978 issued by the In-charge Medical Officer, District Family Planning Bureau, Munger by which he was temporarily appointed on the post of Clerk in the Primary Health Centre, Rani Shakarpura under Khagaria district. It was specifically mentioned in the said order that his appointment was temporary which could be terminated at any time without issuing any notice or assigning any reason. 13. Though the petitioner has been paid remuneration for the period he worked, the same does not entitle him to be adjusted on the post of clerk after such a huge delay that too when his initial appointment has been seriously disputed by the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to bring on record sufficient material to show that his initial appointment was in accordance with law. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for want of sufficient material in support of the petitioner’s aforesaid claim. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.