Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 December, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.28615 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 28615 of 2013
Date of Decision: 21.12.2013
Dinesh Kumar
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioner served as a Clinical Psychologist in the Department of Psychiatry PGIMS Rohtak under the District Mental Health Programme. The post was advertised on contract basis for one year duration for work at Civil Hospitala at Hisar and Gurgaon but under a scheme operated by PGIMS Rohtak. The appointment order is dated 05th September, 2006. The petitioner joined on 07th September, 2006. The term expired on 07th March, 2008 when the contractual appointment came to an end. The services of the petitioner were discharged. He represented against disengagement on which he has been informed by letter dated 30th July, 2008 that his case has been considered and a fresh contract could not be offered after expiry of the contractual period due to non-availability of funds under the Scheme. The Head of the Department, Department of Psychiatry, PGIMS, Rohtak was the nominated Psychiatry-cum-Nodal Officer of DMHP scheme administered by the PGIMS, Rohtak who was informed accordingly of the decision by Mittal Manju 2014.01.20 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.28615 of 2013 -2- the Director, PGIMS, Rohtak.
The petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 05th November, 2009 written by the Financial Advisor and addressed to the Public Information Officer, PGIMS, Rohtak that Government of India has intimated that posts as per guidelines issued are not to be abolished for want of funds. It is not clear from this order which has been produced in isolation as to what posts fell in the guidelines, a copy of which guidelines has also not been produced before this Court for its perusal. Based on the letter dated 05th November, 2009 the petitioner made a representation to the Director, PGIMS, Rohtak dated 17th February, 2011 complaining that his post should not have been abolished for want of funds and, therefore, his services were terminated on a wrong plea. It appears that the petitioner was appointed to serve on contract basis as a Clinical Psychologist in the Hisar Centre. It was his complaint that Hisar Centre was being run without a Clinical Psychologist and, therefore, he made a claim for reinstatement through his letter (P-6).
What has brought the petitioner to this Court after disengagement from service on 07th March, 2008 is an advertisement issued by the Civil Surgeon, Hisar calling applications to fill one post of Clinical Psychologist on contract basis for a period of 11 months or up to 31st March, 2014. The date of interview was fixed for 23rd December, 2013. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 30th July, 2008 (P-4) and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Clinical Psychologist with continuity of service and to consequentially release all service benefits. The petitioner not having agitated his disengagement for Mittal Manju 2014.01.20 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.28615 of 2013 -3- five years cannot be permitted to stake claim on reinstatement today without possessing any actionable right vested in him. The petitioner is not an industrial worker covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim rights of re-entry into service through a provision such as Section 25-H of the Act. The petitioner is not a workman entitled for re- employment as a retrenched workman. The post of Clinical Psychologist is not a post under the State but is an engagement under a scheme sponsored by the Central Government but operated through the Nodal Agency, i.e. PGIMS, Rohtak for performance of specific work in Civil Hospitals in Haryana. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the issuance of the advertisement under DMHP Scheme and would remain free to compete for the post on merits.
No ground warranting interference is made out.
The writ fails and is dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 21.12.2013 JUDGE manju Mittal Manju 2014.01.20 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh