Patna High Court - Orders
Jagannath Jha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 May, 2018
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7617 of 2015
======================================================
Jagannath Jha aged about 60 years son of Late Achuta Nand Jha resident of
Village Tatuar Police Station-Manigachi, District- Darbhanga
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Health,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Under Secretary Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. State Leprosy Officer, Bihar Patna.
4. Regional Deputy Director Health Services Kosi Division Saharsa.
5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer Saharsa.
6. The Additional Chief Medical Officer Saharsa (D D O).
7. The District Leprosy Officer Saharsa.
8. Dr. Bhola Nath Jha son of not known at present posted as Civil Surgeon-
Cum-Chief Medical Officer Saharsa.
9. Sri Ganesh Prasad, son of not known, Head Clerk in the Office of the
Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer Saharsa.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
4 10-05-2018Learned counsel for the petitioner and State have assisted the Court.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:
" That this is an application for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to pay the petitioner his all post retiral benefits Patna High Court CWJC No.7617 of 2015 (4) dt.10-05-2018 2/5 including Pension, GPF, Gratuity, leave encashment, GSS and all other payable due amounts, which became due on superannuation of the petitioner with effect from 31.01.2015 from the post of Non-Medical Assistant, Primary Health Centre, Salakhua Block Saharsa vide Office Order No. 23 dated 29.01.2015 issued by the District Leprosy Eradication Officer Saharsa (Respondent No.)."
3. The controversy relates to the very initial appointment of the petitioner on the post of Non-Medical Assistant in the year 1983. Though earlier also, service of the petitioner was terminated, but by an interim stay by the Court, he continued and finally the matter was remanded for getting an enquiry made. In terms thereof, the Committee constituted gave a finding that the appointment of the petitioner was on the basis of forged letter as the same was not available in the official records. Such report of the enquiry has also been interfered with by the Court.
4. However, the basic question still remains as to whether the appointment of the petitioner itself was legal or illegal or even forged and fabricated. From the materials on record and various correspondences, copies of which are part of the records of Patna High Court CWJC No.7617 of 2015 (4) dt.10-05-2018 3/5 the present case, the Court finds that the petitioner has to satisfy the Court with regard to his appointment being pursuant to a valid prescribed procedure known to law. For this, he has to show that there was an advertisement followed by setting up of a Selection Committee and thereafter a procedure adopted, including interview followed by a panel and thereafter appointment by the Competent Authority. In the present case, even as per the stand of the petitioner, the letter which he relies upon as being the appointment letter dated 12.08.1983 issued by the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga, the same starts with the word "vkns'kkuqlkj", which clearly means that it was under the direction of a superior authority. The petitioner has not been able to explain or show to the Court as to who was the authority which had directed the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga to appoint the petitioner. The said letter also does not disclose any procedure, muchless any advertisement or selection. Even from the pleadings on record, the petitioner himself has pleaded that the advertisement was through the Labour and Employment Department and he had applied directly in the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga and thereafter he was given the appointment letter by the said officer. The petitioner has tired to show to the Court the information Patna High Court CWJC No.7617 of 2015 (4) dt.10-05-2018 4/5 received under the Right to Information Act that the records of the relevant period are missing from the office and, thus, the contention was that in the absence of such records, service of the petitioner cannot be said to be forged or fabricated. However, with regard to the very basic issue as to whether the initial entry into service itself was valid and legal, the Court has not been shown any material which would even remotely indicate that any procedure prescribed in law was adopted before issuing appointment letter to the petitioner. Thus, even if on technicality, the Court may have interfered in the enquiry report, but once the matter is before the Court and the petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity to satisfy the Court with regard to the validity and legality of his initial appointment, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to satisfy the Court.
5. The reason why the Court would insist on this is that the law is now settled that fraud will vitiate all subsequent actions and if there is nothing on record to show that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law, all subsequent actions being vitiated, there cannot be any claim to any salary, muchless pensionary benefits. The Court would only indicate here that even with regard to the pensionary benefits, the settled law is that right to the same flows from a valid Patna High Court CWJC No.7617 of 2015 (4) dt.10-05-2018 5/5 appointment. Once this basic issue remains doubtful, no consequential relief by way of either unpaid salary or pensionary benefits can be granted. Further, the Court finds that the petitioner on his own showing has not pleaded with regard to any procedure of selection by a Selection Committee having been adopted. In view of contemporary original records not being available, the onus cannot be on the authorities to get the so called appointment letter of the petitioner verified. Even in the initial show cause issued to the petitioner in the year 2003, there is enough indication that after correspondence between the authorities, upon verification, it transpired that the appointment was forged and fabricated. This aspect has also not been explained by the petitioner.
6. Thus, for all practical purposes, the matter could have been disposed off, but in view of prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking one opportunity to further assist the Court, the matter be listed on 28th June, 2018.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/-
U