Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Kumar And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 12 May, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6516 of 2013
with
W.P. (S) No. 6519 of 2013
with
W.P. (S) No. 6520 of 2013
---
1. Rajesh Kumar Singh
2. Saroj Rani Nag
3. Benjamin Lakra
4. Vinay Kumar Singh
5. Parvej Sultan
6. Usha Singh
7. Nand Kishore Kumar
8. Md. Sartaj Alam
9. Karanti Kumar
10.Tidu Munda
11.Seema Kumari
12. Lavkesh Kumar Singh
13. Anil Kumar Lakra
14. Anil M.P. Toppo
15. Sunil Munda
16. Rajiv Ranjan Singh
17. Meri Mamta Bajrai
18. Arun Kumar Singh
19. Umesh Kumar
20. Kiran Verma
21. Md. Shamsul Haque
22. Shabnam Khatoon
23. Satish Kumar
24. Usha Kumari
25. Salam Ansari --- --- ---- Petitioners in WPS 6516/13
1. Ranjeet Kumar
2. Shobha Kumari
3. Pushpa Kumari
4.Manoj Kumar Singh
5. Vinay bilkan
6. Kum Kum Kumari
7. Benedikta Tigga
8. Amit Kerketta
9. Suresh Das
10. Arjun Oraon
11. Sanjay Kumar
12. Ashok Kumr Sinha
13. Ibarat Alam
14. Md. Abuzar
15. Md. Imteyaz Khan --- ---- ---- Petitioners in WPS 6519/13
1. Rajkumar Sharma
2. Jivodhan Mistri
3. Chander Yadav
4. Pankaj Kumar
5. Manoj Kumar Singh
6. Md. Shamimul Haque
7. Roshan Topno
8. Md. Sahid Mukhtar
2.
9. Rajesh Kumar Rajak
10. Md. Saiyad Jahir Alam
11. Jaimani Toppo
12. Magret Tirkey
13. Pankaj Kumar Sharma
14. Saurabh Kumar Rai
15. Md. Amanullah
16. Md. Mumtaj Ahmad
17. Anand Kumar
18. Sudarshan Kumar Singh
19. Prabhakar Kumar Chouhan
20. Surendra Singh
21. Nisha Rani
22. Kum Kum Kumari
23. Vinod Yadav
24. Anjani Kumar
25. Vinay Singh
26. Rita Kumari
27. Nurush Sawan ---- ---- --- Petitioners in WPS 6520/13
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand
2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,
Dumka --- --- --- Respondents in all cases
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: JC to A.A.G. Mr. Jai Prakash, JC to A.A.G. Mr. Ajit
Kumar & JC to AG
---
03/ 12.05.2015Common issues are involved in all these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been tagged together and are being heard analogous.
2. Common grievance of these petitioners is that they have been terminated from the post of Health Worker in the Health Services in the district of Dumka by a common order dated 31.08.1998 which is Annexure-3. It is their contention that they were daily wage labourers working since 1983 in the first two writ petitions and from 1985 in the 3rd writ petition. However, they were appointed on permanent post in respective years i.e. 1989 and 1993 in the individual cases by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka. Appointment letters are enclosed as Annexures-1 & 3 in WPS No. 6516/2013 and WPS No. 6520/2013 and Annexure-3 in WPS No. 6519/2013. The common grievance of all these writ 3. petitioners in the present writ petitions preferred in the year 2013 is that they should be reinstated in service in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have been reinstated in service in view of the order passed by the Patna High Court as well as by this Court. However, authorities have refused to entertain their prayer for reinstatement.
3. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the very issue raised in these writ petitions have earlier been considered by this Court in the case of Shambhu Sharma & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in WPS No. 3661/2013 which was decided by judgment dated 06.05.2014, copy of which has also been produced by the learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners in the said case had also come before this Court in 2013 seeking quashing of the same order dated 31.08.1998 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, taking all such pleas which were duly considered while deciding the said case.
4. For better appreciation, judgment dated 06.05.2014 which has adequately dealt with the plea of the said petitioners and also stands applicable to the facts of the present case, is being quoted hereunder:
"Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioners who are 27 in number have sought quashing of an order dated 31st August, 1998, Annexure-3, issued by Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna, whereby, according to them, their services were terminated. The appointment letter of the years 1989, 1993 and 1995 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, have been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition in support of their contention that they were appointed on respective Class-III post of Health Worker in Primary Health Centres in the district of Dumka on daily wages and were absorbed on the said post by the said letter.
The petitioners have contended that Annexure-3, which is impugned though does not mention their names, but the petitioners have also been terminated under the same order as allegedly such appointments were made through forged and fabricated appointment letters. The said findings are also indicated in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also stated that some of the affected persons had been pursuing their cases before the Patna High Court in the writ petition and in Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the same by the State of Bihar, the judgments of which are annexed as Annexures- 4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is submitted on the strength of the said judgments that 4. the termination order of the said petitioners were set aside and they were directed to be reinstated. Therefore, the petitioners also deserve to be reinstated in service.
According to the petitioners, some of the other person had also approached this Court in other writ petition such as W.P.(S) No. 7263 of 2012 in which a direction was given to the respondents to dispose of the representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.
On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated that after passing of the judgment in some of the other cases of similarly situated employees who were appointed in the Tuberculosis Department by one Dr. A.A. Mallik in wholly, arbitrary, illegal and perverse manner, the matter was considered by the Respondent-State and representation of such persons have been rejected by Annexure-B dated 1st October, 2011 passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand. It has been further stated that the opinion of the learned Advocate General was also taken as to whether the said persons could be permitted to join in the Successor State of Jharkhand in view of the judgments passed by the Patna High Court in such cases in 2009. They have made reference to the opinion of the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand that the State of Jharkhand is not bound to accept the joining of the persons in compliance of the order passed by the Patna High Court. Such directions have also been issued by the Health Department to all the concerned Civil Surgeons within the State of Jharkhand. Reference has also been made to similar illegal appointments made in the Leprosy Department which were terminated and thereafter on consideration of the representation of such persons, their claims had also been rejected. The respondents have therefore taken a plea that the appointees of Dr. A.A Mallik, the then Deputy Director of Tuberculosis have been examined and such illegal appointees have been terminated during the existence of erstwhile State of Bihar taking into account all these facts. Therefore the claim of such similarly situated persons was also rejected by Annexure-B, as above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. In the first place, it is apparent that the petitioners allege to have been terminated in the year 1998 after issuance of the order dated 31st August, 1998 itself by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services Bihar on the grounds that the appointments made at the relevant point of time in the Tuberculosis Department were found to be forged and fabricated. In spite of that the petitioners have moved before this Court after 15 years in the present writ application. A reference has been made to one or other judgments passed by the Patna High Court. Though reference has been made to the order passed by this Court earlier in respect of such employees whose services were terminated in similar manner, but perusal of one such order at Annexure-7 indicates that the respondents were only directed to take a decision in accordance with law.
On the other hand, the stand of the respondents as reflected hereinabove, indicates that these appointments were made sometime in 1980s and earlier 1990s by one doctor A.A.Mallik who was the then Deputy Director, Tuberculosis in an illegal and irregular manner and the services of such illegal appointees were 5. also terminated by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The respondents also appeared to have considered the cases of similarly situated employees upon direction passed in one or other case upon them to dispose of their representation. Upon consideration of such representations pursuant to the direction passed in several cases such as W.P.(S) No. 5629 of 2010; W.P.(S) No. 2336 of 2010; W.P.(S) No. 2396 of 2010; W.P.(S) No. 2589 of 2011 and W.P.(S) No. 2918 of 2011, the claim for reinstatement of such persons have been rejected by a reasoned order which is enclosed as Annexure-B dated 1st October, 2011 passed by the Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand. Therefore examining the claim of the petitioners from all aspect not only the writ petition is suffering from gross delay and latches as the petitioners have never agitated their cause of action rather sat over the matter till 2013, at the same time the case of similarly situated persons were considered by the respondent authorities of the State of Jharkhand and have been rejected, as aforesaid.
Therefore, no grounds for interference in the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that there are any distinguishable features in the present case from that of Shambhu Sharma & others (Supra) decided earlier by this Court. Therefore, this writ petition also have to meet the same fate.
6. Having considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/