Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Singh vs Health on 22 April, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 1251 of 2015
...
Sunil Kumar Singh ... ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
5. The Director-in-Chief, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
6. The Regional Deputy Director, Department
of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare,
North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh... ...Respondents
with
W. P. (S) No. 1394 of 2015
with
W. P. (S) No. 1395 of 2015
with
W. P. (S) No. 1397 of 2015
with
W. P. (S) No. 1418 of 2015
...
Nilmani Jha ... ... Petitioner(W. P. (S) No. 1394 of 2015)
Ram Ratan Singh ... ... Petitioner(W. P. (S) No. 1395 of 2015)
Vinod Kumar ... ... Petitioner(W. P. (S) No. 1397 of 2015)
Shiv Kumar Prasad ... ... Petitioner(W. P. (S) No. 1418 of 2015)
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
5. The Director-in-Chief, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
6. The Regional Deputy Director, Department
of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare,
South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi ... ...Respondents
(in W. P. (S) Nos. 1394/1395/1397/1418 of 2015)
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioners : - M/s Sudarsan Srivastava
and Ashok Kumar, Advs.
(in all the aforesaid cases)
For the Respondents :- Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, JC to AG
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, JC to AAG
Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, JC to GA.
....
03/22.04.2015All these writ petitions have been taken together with the consent of the parties as common issues are involved in all -2- these writ petitions and the petitioners are aggrieved by the same impugned notification dated 25.03.2015 issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereunder they have been transferred from one place to another.
In W. P. (S) No. 1251 of 2015, the petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh, has been transferred from the post of Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh to the post of Medical Officer, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chakradharpur, Chaibasa, which according to him, amounts to demotion as he was earlier posted on the same post vide notification dated 16.12.2014.
In W. P. (S) No. 1394 of 2015, the petitioner, Nilmani Jha, is aggrieved by the same impugned notification whereunder he has been transferred from the post of Director, Family Planning, Health Department, Directorate, Namkum Ranchi to the post of Additional Chief Medical Officer-2, Chaibasa. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer has been done without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee and without any complaint against the petitioner. In fact, he has been demoted from the higher post to the post of additional Chief Medical Officer-2, Chaibasa without following the principles of natural justice. Additional ground has been raised in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner is at serial no. 238 in the combined gradation list notified on 07.03.2012 while Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Chaibasa under whom he has been posted to work, is at serial no. 617 and junior to him.
In W. P. (S) No. 1395 of 2015, the petitioner, Ram Ratan Singh alleges that he has been demoted from the post of Deputy Director, Health Services, Jharkhand,Ranchi to Medical Officer, Primary, Health Centre, Jagarnathpur, Chaibasa, which is in the nature of demotion without issuance of any show cause or notice. As per the additional ground raised by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has been made to work under a junior officer, who is Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer at Chaibasa as the petitioner is at serial no. 336 in the gradation list while the said person is at serial no. 617.
In W.P.(S) No. 1397 of 2015, the petitioner, Vinod Kumar is aggrieved by the same notification dated 25.3.2015 as according to him he has also been demoted from the post of -3- Deputy Director, Health Service, Ranchi to the post of District Malaria Officer, Latehar without any notice or proceeding or without any complaint. According to him he is senior to the Civil Surgeon, Latehar as in the gradation list, he is placed at serial no. 464 while the Civil Surgeon, Latehar is at serial no. 487.
In W.P.(S) No. 1418, the petitioner, Shiv Kumar Prasad has also approached this Court being aggrieved by the same impugned notification alleging that he has been demoted from the post of Additional Director, Health Directorate, Ranchi to the post of District Malaria Officer, Palmau without any show cause or notice. According to him he was posted as Additional Director, Health Directorate, Ranchi on 30.6.2011 and by the impugned notification he has been placed under the Civil Surgeon, Palamau who is junior to him being placed at serial no. 1191 in the combined gradation list, whereas petitioner is at serial no. 269.
Common grounds to assail the impugned notification by all these petitioners as canvassed by learned counsel appearing on their behalf is as follows:-
(i) Petitioners have been demoted from the higher post by the impugned notification without any departmental proceeding or show cause.
(ii) Petitioners have been posted at the place where the Controlling Officers i.e. the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer of the respective districts are junior to the individual petitioners as per the combined gradation list published by the Department.
(iii) The Medical Services (Recruitment, Promotion and other Service Conditions) Rule,2010 which governs the service conditions of the Medical Officers in the State of Jharkhand laid down the hierarchy of posts with strength of cadre indicated in Rule 3. As per the petitioners they are getting higher scale of pay equivalent to the higher post in the hierarchy and in one or the other cases have been posted at places which is of the basic feeder cadre itself. They may therefore also be prejudiced as their pay scale may be reduced consequent to that.
(iv) It is submitted that when the petitioners are having the scale of pay in a prescribed pay band which is belonging to the higher cadre of post, the impugned notification has placed them in post belonging to lower cadre which is in teeth of the -4- aforesaid rules.
These are the submissions of the petitioners to impugn the transfer notification.
It is the consistent case of the respondent- State as borne out from the counter affidavits filed in the respective writ petitions that in the State of Jharkhand no promotion has been granted to any Medical Officer till date. All the Medical Officers are working in their present scale of pay on different post. None of the petitioners have been able to show that they have been substantively promoted to the next higher post as claimed by them. Therefore, they cannot allege that they have been demoted to the lower post. It is also their case that the impugned notification has been issued upon the recommendation of the Departmental Establishment Committee and approved by the competent authority in exigency of work and in larger public interest. Respondents also stated that pursuant to the increase in the age limit of retirement of Medical Officer from 60 to 65 years in the State, the State is well within its competence to use the services of individual Officers at any place in larger public interest. It is further their case that by virtue of transfer, none of the petitioner would suffer in any way on account of monetary benefit.
Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the averments made in some of the counter affidavits submitted that the grievances of the petitioners relating to the question that they have been posted under an Officer who is junior to them in the respective district is a matter which can be looked into by the department. It is also their case that several such Officers who are senior in gradation list have been working in those districts under the Civil Surgeons who may be junior in the gradation lists. They in substance submitted that none of the Medical Officers had been earlier promoted to the higher post in the State by virtue of posting them in one or the other Districts. None of the petitioner may suffer in that sense that they are demoted to the lower post. Therefore, the impugned notification does not suffers from any error of law and facts and needs no interference from this Court.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned notification. The argument of learned counsel for the -5- petitioners that by virtue of their holding a higher scale of pay in a particular pay band that on account of their impugned transfer, they would be demoted to the feeder post is not made out in law as none of the petitioners have been able to show that they have been substantively promoted to the next higher post, though some of them may have been working on the post of Civil Surgeon, Director, Deputy Director or Additional Director, as the case may be. It also appears that by virtue of length of service of individual petitioner they might have been placed in a particular pay scale in particular pay band which according to the respondents would not be altered because of impugned transfer of the petitioners at the relevant places. It is also true that the impugned notification has been made upon recommendation of the Departmental Establishment Committee and upon approval of the competent authority under the respondent- State. It also appears that the impugned notification are in the nature of chain and bulk transfer where services of one or the other Medical Officers including these petitioners have been placed at one or the other place in the exigency of work and in the larger public interest. If the petitioners have not been granted any regular promotion as claimed by them and they have been posted in one or the other place commensurate to the basic cadre to which they belong, the petitioners should not have any reason to complain as the services of the Medical Officers may be utilized by State at any such places where exigency of work and larger public interest demands. It however also appears that respondent- department has taken note of certain allegation of discrepancy in the matters relating to the posting of one or the other Officers in a particular post where the Officers Junior to him has been working as Civil Surgeon-cum Chief Medical Officer. The department in its affidavit has also disclosed that such issues can be taken care of by the respondent- department in accordance with law and after placing the matter before the competent authority.
In such circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law, procedure or facts in the impugned notification of transfer which requires interference by this Court. However, it is deemed appropriate, given the stand of the respondents to direct them to look into the aforesaid discrepancy as may be -6- noticed in individual cases by placing the matter before the competent authority and the Departmental Establishment Committee. Such consideration may be done without any unreasonable delay so that the simmering grievances of the petitioners may be taken care of by their parent department.
Therefore, without interfering with the impugned notification in the individual cases, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent- Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the individual discrepancy in the matter of transfer as claimed by the petitioners within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
In the case of Sunil Kumar Singh, petitioner in W. P. (S) No. 1251 of 2015, the impugned notification was stayed by an interim order dated 31.3.2015 and it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been relieved. In the case of rest of the petitioners, there is no stay and by virtue of letter dated 25.3.2015 they were supposed to be relieved by 7.4.2015. Therefore, except in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh, other petitioners should submit joining at their transferred place of posting, if not already joined. However, in view of the direction issued as aforesaid, till the respondent- department takes a decision on the individual case of discrepancy pointed out by the petitioner- Sunil Kumar Singh, he not be relieved from the present place of posting.
The individual petitioners shall make representation in respect of their aforesaid grievances before the competent authority under the respondent- department within a period of one week duly supported with all necessary facts and documents.
All the writ petitions are disposed of according.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty/ Kamlesh