Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3265 of 2020
Mahesh Singh, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Ram Janam Singh,
Resident of Juna Bhawan, New Amrawati Colony, P.O. Chutia, P.S.
Chutia, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary (Health), Department of Health, Family Welfare and
Medical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi / Jharkhand
3. The Director (Health), Department of Health, Family Welfare and
Medical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi/Jharkhand
4. The Director, RINPAS, RINPAS Campus, Kanke, P.O. - Kanke,
P.S. - Kanke, District - Ranchi / Jharkhand/ Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Resp. No.4 : Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
---
04/30.06.2022 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"a) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed on 01.06.1983 and working till today and is going to retire with effect from 31.01.2021;
b) For a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation of the service of the petitioner on account of judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court wherein it has been held that passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination is not required for Medical Personnel as decided in W.P.(S). No.1560/2014, W.P.(S). No.4081/2018, W.P.(S). No.301/2019 and as the petitioner is a Pharmacist, he was not required to write anything in Hindi;
c) For issuance a direction upon the respondents that after confirmation of the services of the petitioner, also consider the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of 1st and 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP;
d) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents that till the pendency of the present writ application no order of recovery may be passed as the issue is no more res integra before this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the counter-affidavit and submits that as per the counter-affidavit, the post-retiral benefits as well as the arrear has already been paid to the petitioner, but the petitioner has surviving grievance with regard to confirmation of 2 service and with regard to 1st A.C.P, 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd M.A.C.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following three judgments, which have been passed by this Court:
i) W.P.(S). No.1560 of 2014 (Papiya Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) (Annexure - 6) which was passed in relation to nurses.
ii) W.P.(S). No.301 of 2019 (Bachchu Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) which was with regard to Pharmacist.
iii) W.P.(S). No.4081 of 2018 (Arun Kumar Jha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) which was passed with regard to Ayurvedic Mishrak (Ayurvedic Compounder).
4. Learned counsel submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the surviving grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the matter can be looked into by respondent no.2 and they also submit that the writ petition being W.P.(S). No.301 of 2019 and W.P.(S). No.4081 of 2018 were relating to Pharmacist and Ayurvedic Compounder wherein, the order of recovery was passed on account of non-passing of Hindi noting and drafting examination and the recovery order was set aside by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2014) 4 SCC 334. Learned counsels also submit that there is no specific notification with regard to Pharmacist or with regard to Ayurvedic Compounder. However, they submit that the entire aspect of the can be taken care of by the respondent no.2 who may look into the judgments and various Circulars issued by the respondents.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that most of the grievances of the petitioner has been redressed by the respondents. The surviving grievance of the petitioner is with regard to confirming his service and grant of 1st A.C.P, 2nd A.C.P and 3rd M.A.C.P. These grievances of the petitioner can be looked into by the respondent no.2 at the first instance who may verify the facts and legality of the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is 3 disposed of by enabling the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation before respondent no.2 along with the writ records within a period of one month from today. Upon filing of such representation, respondent no.2 is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law taking into consideration the various judgments passed by this Court as well as other Circulars, Notification, guidelines etc. of the respondents. The reasoned order should be passed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation and the same should be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address to be given in the representation. If the petitioner is found entitled to any monetary benefit pursuant to reasoned order, appropriate steps be also taken by the respondent no.2 so that the same is also given to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of passing of the reasoned order.
7. It is made clear that this court has not entered into the legality or otherwise of the aforesaid claim of the petitioner and it is for the Respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav