Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Mohinder Paul Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 July, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4352 of 2009
.
Reserved on: 01.07.2016
Date of decision: 20.07.2016
Dr. Mohinder Paul Sharma .... Petitioner
of
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents
rt
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI, with Mr. Nipun
Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Puneet
Razta, Deputy Advocate Generals,
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
None for respondent No. 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.:
This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Entire records of the case may kindly be summoned and perused.
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order closing the De-Addiction Rehabilitation Centre, Una passed by the respondent No. 3 and to oust the patients forcibly and to give possession 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 2
of the premises of the Centre illegally without any due process of law and continue the said centre in the light of the scheme framed by the .
respondent No. 1 for the welfare of the people in the interest of the general public.
(c) Direction may kindly be issued by way of writ of mandamus to the respondents to release the salary for the period from 01.04.2008 till of 25.07.2009, which has been illegally withheld by the respondents, alongwith interest @12% rt p.a. and to allow him to continue in service, as usual and they may be allowed to perform their duties in the centre.
(d) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, be issued.
(e) Cost of the petition be granted in favour of the petitioner, And justice may be done."
2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer (Part-time) on a monthly salary of Rs.5000/- w.e.f. 25.10.2002 and he continued to serve as such till 25.07.2009. His appointment was under the scheme for Prevention of Alcoholism and Substances (Drugs) Abuse, under which scheme treatment-cum-
rehabilitation centre was made functional on Takka Road, Una in July, 2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said rehabilitation centre has been forcibly closed without the prior approval of respondents No.1 and 2 and the closure of they same is in violation of the scheme. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing the order passed by respondent No. 3 to close the de-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 3addiction rehabilitation centre, Una and further he has also prayed that respondents be directed to release his salary for the period .
from 01.04.2008 till 25.07.2009 and to allow him to continue in service. As per the petitioner, the centre was closed with an ulterior motive to give undue benefit to one Shri Harpal Singh, landlord of the building, where the said centre was running since of 2001 in order to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the land owner. It is further the allegation of the petitioner that rt said Harpal Singh happens to be father-in-law of reputed Advocate practicing at Una and, therefore, he had managed the affairs in connivance with the staff of respondent No. 3 with an ulterior motive. He has also stated in the petition that on 25.07.2009 staff of the centre closed the office at 5.00 P.M., when besides the patients who were staying there, Harpal Singh and his wife Smt. Ram Piari alias Manso Devi were there, who forcibly ousted the patients and locked the premises. It was on these grounds that the present petition was filed. Incidentally, the order passed by respondent No. 3 directing closure of de-addiction rehabilitation centre, Una, quashing of which has been sought by the petitioner is not on record. Though, personal allegations have been levelled against one Harpal Singh, however, said Harpal Singh has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition.
Similarly, there are allegations of malafide alleged against the staff of respondent No. 3, however, it is not mentioned in the petition as to who was the member of the staff who has allegedly connived with Harpal Singh.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 43. In its reply filed to the petition, the stand of respondent No. 1 was that the Ministry of Social Justice and .
Empowerment, Government of India formulated a scheme for Prevention of Alcoholism and Substances (Drugs) Abuse for identification counseling, treatment and rehabilitation of addicts through voluntary and other eligible organizations and under the of said scheme, grant-in-aid is provided to eligible organization including a Society registered under the Societies Registration rt Act or any other relevant statutory provisions. In the present case, Indian Red Cross Society, Una, was running a de-addiction Rehabilitation Centre at Una. Deputy Commissioner-cum-
Chairman of the District Red Cross Society, Una, sent a proposal of the organization for release of grant-in-aid for running of de-
addiction centre at Una for the year 2006-2007 under the said scheme vide letter dated 11.09.2006. Scrutiny of the proposal revealed that during inspection of the project on 26.07.2006 only one beneficiary was found in the centre, whose bed capacity was
15. Besides this, deficiencies were also pointed out in the inspection report itself and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-
Chairman, District Red Cross Society, Una, was asked as to why grant-in-aid should not be stopped forthwith. The response filed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman was not found satisfactory. The proposal for the year 2007-2008 was received in the Ministry vide letter dated 07.08.2007 and when inspection was carried out, the same revealed that on the date of inspection, only four beneficiaries were found present against the bed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 5 strength of 15. In this background, communication dated 26.12.2007 was sent to the organization seeking explanation for .
non-utilization of full sanctioned capacity of the centre and as to why further grants should not be stopped. The response filed by the organization was not found satisfactory. The audit report also revealed that there was unspent balance of Rs.2,06,915.00 of for the year 2005-2006. As per respondent No. 1, in view of the above situation, the grants could not be released to the centre. It rt was further mentioned in the reply that no proposal was received from the State Government for the year 2009-2010 and as per the "extant procedure" in the Ministry, the case had become time barred.
4. In its reply filed by respondent No. 3, it was been mentioned that the petitioner was given a contractual, conditional appointment subject to the success of the scheme for Prevention of Alcoholism and Intoxicating Substances Abuse framed under the aegis of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of the Government of India. The de-addiction centre which was allotted was to be managed by the District Red Cross Society, Una. The same was to be run on the basis of receipt of the matching grant-
in-aid upto 95% from the Government of India. It was the non-
receipt of the grant-in-aid, which according to the said respondent, led to the closure of the de-addiction centre. The said respondent has further mentioned in its reply that with the closure of the said de-addiction centre, neither red Cross Society nor respondent No. 3 were going to be benefited in any manner. It was also denied that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 6 there was any personal or institutional interest common to the interest of the landlord in whose premises the said de-addiction .
centre was being run. Respondent No. 3 has further stated that it made all efforts which were within its ambit to ensure that the de-addiction centre was kept functional, however, because central aid was stopped, therefore, in this view of the matter, all efforts of made in this regard ended in vain leading to the closure of the de-addiction centre. It has further been mentioned by respondent rt No. 3 that the petitioner was paid the part time honorarium as long as he worked till his contract was terminated.
5. In its reply filed by respondent No. 2, the said respondent has stated that the appointment of the employees of the de-addiction centre, Una, was made by chairman, District Red Cross Society, Una and the staff of the said centre was under the direct control of the Chairman and respondent No. 2 had no role except to send proposal for grant-in-aid received from the District Red Cross Society, Una, to Government of India.
6. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner only to the reply filed by respondent No. 3. In the said rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition and he has again alleged that everything was done at the behest and at the instance of respondent No. 4 who was not interested to run the centre with an ulterior motive.
7. I have hard learned counsel for the parties.
8. In my considered view, there is no merit in the present petition. The allegations which have been leveled in the writ ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 7 petition are not only bald but not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate the same.
.
It is evident from the reply filed by respondent No. 1 that keeping in view the fact that de-addiction centre opened at Una was not adhering to the conditions contemplated under the scheme under which the same was opened, the said respondent rightly stopped of the release of grant-in-aid in favour of respondent No. 3. The allegation of the plaintiff that everything was done at the behest rt of the landlord in order to ensure that he gets the vacant possession of his property do not have any merit. Neither these allegations have been substantiated by any material on record nor the landlord against whom these allegations have been made in petition, has been made a party respondent in the case. The petitioner has also not been able to prove any malafides against respondent No. 4 or for that matter against any other respondents. A conjoint reading of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 3 makes it clear that de-addiction centre was closed because respondent No. 1 stopped the release of grant-in-aid in its favour, as according to the said respondent, the de-addiction centre was not being run as per the norms of the scheme under which the same was opened.
9. Further, it is apparent from the appointment letter, which has been issued to the petitioner dated 22.10.2002 that his appointment as Medical Officer (Part-time) was purely on contract basis and his services could be terminated at any time ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 8 without assigning any reason and he was not entitled to claim seniority and other benefits of Government services.
.
10. The appointment of the petitioner was against the post of Medical Officer (Part-time) for de-addiction centre, Una, which de-addiction centre was opened under aegis of Red Cross of Society, Una, which is evident from the fact that the appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 in his rt capacity as Chairman, District reed Cross society, Una.
11. Therefore, in my considered view, it cannot be said that the closure of the de-addiction centre, Una, was either arbitrary or the said de-addiction centre was closed with an ulterior motive to confer any benefit upon the landlord in whose premises the said de-addiction centre was being run. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate that any amount was due from respondent No. 3 to him as has been claimed in the petition. Bald and baseless allegations have been made in the petition without any material to substantiate the same and malafides have been alleged even against those persons, who have not been impleaded as party respondents in the petition.
12. This Court recognizes the legal right of a citizen to approach an appropriate Court of law for redressal of his/her grievance. But if a litigant does not approach the Court of law with clean hands and files frivolous petition(s), then the said trend has to be deterred by imposing cost on such like litigants.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP 913. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is .
accordingly dismissed with costs, assessed at Rs.10,000.
Miscellaneous Application(s), pending, if any, also stands disposed of.
of
(Ajay Mohan Goel),
July 20, 2016 Judge
(BSS)
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:50:56 :::HCHP