Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chitarmal Mundotiya And Ors vs State Of Raj on 13 April, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13811/2011 (Masarrat Miyan & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.149/2012 (Sunita Martin Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13618/2011 (Mohd. Usman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13846/2011 (Chitarmal Mundotiya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13847/2011 (Shyam Lal Dhakar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13848/2011 (Ajay Kumar Mathur & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14159/2011 (Anju & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14160/2011 (Smt. Kiran Mathur & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14311/2011 (Badri Prasad Vaishnav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14432/2011 (Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14810/2011 (Manisha Gakhareja Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 13th April, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Tanveer Ahmed ] Mr.Govind Gupta ] Mr.Sunil Yadav ], for the petitioners. Mr.N.A.Naqvi, AAG with Mr.Mohd. Rahil Khan, for the State. BY THE COURT:
With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the petitions are heard finally.
By these writ petitions, a prayer is made by the petitioners for transfer of their services to National Rural Health Mission (for short NRHM) from Rajasthan Health System Department Project (for short RHSDP).
It is stated that petitioners were engaged as Patient Counselor/Peon sometime in the year 2004 in RHSDP. It was a project financed by World Bank, accordingly petitioners were continued without interruption. Initially, project was to end in the year 2009 but was continued till 31st September, 2011.
So far as Patient Counselor/Peon are concerned, they have been discontinued whereas those engaged as Manager under RHSDP have been continued by taking them under NRHM, thereby a discrimination has been made by continuing few and discontinuing others, accordingly respondents be directed to transferred the petitioners under NRHM and continued their services on the post of Patient Counselor/Peon.
Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.N.A.Naqvi along with Mr.Mohd. Rahil Khan submits that engagement of petitioners was under a scheme known as RHSDP. It was financed by World Bank, thus petitioners were continued till the end of project. The project was initially sanctioned till the year 2009, however, extension was granted till 31st September, 2011. On completion of project, services of petitioners were discontinued without discrimination. In fact, the project was financed by World Bank, thus in absence of continuance of project, the State Government was not having funds to continue the project.
So far as allegation of continuance of Managers engaged under RHSDP is concerned, same is without substance.
Referring to the document enclosed along with reply, it is submitted that for the year 2010-11, in NRHM Flexi Pool, 35 posts of Manager were sanctioned with budget, which is clearly coming out from Item No.37 of the first document. So far as subsequent year 2011-12 is concerned, budget for Health Manager at DH level and so as the Patient Counselor/Peon at DH and CHC level have not been approved. Accordingly, none is being continued now other than for whom, budget has been sanctioned under NRHM, thus the case of discrimination is not made out.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that petitioners were engaged as Patient Counselor/Peon in the year 2004. They were continued in service till the end of project, which was to end initially in the year 2009 but with the extension, it ended on 31st September, 2011.
The grievance of petitioner is regarding discrimination in the action of respondents.
The main thrust of argument is regarding continuance of Health Manager and discontinuance of Patient Counselor/Peon in a discriminatory manner. This is moreso when, favourable recommendation was also made for continuance of Patient Counselor/Peon, as is coming out from the document enclosed along with writ petition. The fact, however, remains that recommendation in favour of petitioners was not approved by the Government of India for NRHM. The RHSDP was financed by the World Bank and after September, 2011, no funds are made available for the aforesaid project. The matter was sent to Government of India as it is financing other project, namely, NRHM. The post of Patient Counselor/Peon was not approved as is coming out from Annex.R/II appended to the reply. The aforesaid document further shows denial of approval even for the post of Health Manager at DH Level, thus I do not find any material to indicate sanction of budget for Health Manager at any other level and in any case, action of respondents should be without discrimination.
Learned Additional Advocate General is fair enough to state that if there would be any possibility along with sanction of budget to continue the petitioners, endeavour would be favourable to them. However, in absence of budget and sanction, they cannot be continued. The respondents would also avoid discrimination between person engaged in a particular project for their continuation in other project, unless there are specific reasons.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed off with the following observations and directions:
(i)The petitioners have been engaged in RHSDP and continued till 31st September, 2011, thus discontinuance with the closure of project cannot be held to be illegal.
(ii)If the Health Managers engaged under RHSDP are continued despite of denial of budget vide Annex.II to the reply then respondents are directed to take proper view in the case of petitioners so as to give them similar treatment. In case, Health Managers are not continued at DH Level then aforesaid exercise can be ignored.
(iii)It is further directed that in future if service for Patient Counselor/Peon is required, petitioners would be given preference looking to their experience upto seven years.
(iv)If any of the petitioners continued either by way of interim order or otherwise by the respondents, then it goes without saying that they would be paid salary/remuneration for the period they were allowed to serve as Patient Counselor/Peon.
This disposes of the stay applications also.
(M.N. BHANDARI),J.
Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A