Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.K. Chand Basha vs The Regional Director Of Medical And ... on 28 March, 2025
1
APHC010118122020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7378/2020
Between:
S.k. Chand Basha ...PETITIONER
AND
The Regional Director Of Medical And Health Services ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. THORATI SURYA PRABHAVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"...pleased ...pleased to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus to set aside the 1st Respondent Rc.No.879/A3/2018 dated 15.10 2019 in not treating the periods from 30.06 2018 to 06.01.2019 as Compulsory Wait in terms of A.P Fundamental Rules as illegal arbitrary, unjust and consequentially direct the respondents to treat the periods from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 Compulsory Wait in terms of A.P Fundamental Rules...".2
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is working at Secondary Vision Center, Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta on deputation (on re-allocation) from his original place PP unit, Vinukonda and was appointed as Para Medical Ophthalmic office and discharging his duties till date to the satisfaction of his superiors and public. Thereafter, he was transferred to PHC, Ipuru and discharging his duties at PHC, Ipuru since 16.03.2013. After wards, the petitioner post was allotted to CHC, Vinukonda. I submit that vide G.O.Ms.No.124 HM and FW(B1) Department, dated 13.10.2015 certain CHs working under administrative control of the 3rd respondent were allotted to APVVP administrative control. The petitioner was reallotted to secondary vision center, area hospital, narasaraopeta only on deputation under the administrative control of the 2nd respondent vide RC.No.2275/NHM/2017 of the CH& FW, Vijayawada, dated 30.01.2018, Rc.No.446/E6/2018 of the DM & HO, Guntur, dated 03.02.2018 and Rc.No.SPl/NPCB of Director of Public Health, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, dated 17.01.2018.
The petitioner reported for duty at Secondary Vision, Center, Area hospital, Narasaraopeta on 06.02.2018. After lapse of 3 months, the 5th respondent issued orders, dated 15.05.2018 and relocated the petitioner to Vision Center, CHC, Chilakaluripeta who is the competent authority. Against this order, dated 15.05.2018, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1163 of 2018 and as per the interim orders, the petitioner joined for duty on 25.06.2018 at Secondary Vision Center of AH, Narasaraopeta. On request of the petitioner, 3 the period in between 21.05.2018 to 24.06.2018 was sanctioned as leave. Surprisingly on 29.06.2018, the Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta relieved the petitioner from duty at Secondary Vision Center of Area hospital, Narasaraopeta with instruction to report before the Medical Superintendent, CHC, Chilakaluripeta. The O.A. filed by the petitioner was dismissed with a direction to approach the 5th respondent. Against the same, W.P.No.45263 of 2018 was filed and the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad granted an interim direction to continue the petitioner at Secondary Vision Center of Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta. Accordingly, the petitioner reported to duty on 07.01.2019.
The 5th respondent interrupted the services of the petitioner from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 by forcibly relieving him from duty at Secondary Vision Center of Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta without any valid Government orders. Hence, the petitioner made a representation, dated 15.05.2019 to Respondent Nos.1 and 3 through proper channel and it was sent to the 3rd respondent on 15.05.2019 by the Medical Officer PP Unit, Vinukonda enclosing his representation seeking to regularize the periods from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 as compulsory wait. The 1st respondent by his proceedings directed the 3rd respondent to take necessary action for treating the above periods from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 by passing necessary orders enclosing his representation, dated 15.05.2019 and letter, dated 15.05.2019. But, the 1st respondent does not treat the said period as compulsory wait. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4
3. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that the District Medical and Health Officer, Guntur has allotted the petitioner i.e., Sk.Chand Basha, Opthalmic Officer (PMOO) to original place of posting CHC Ipuru (presently working vision center CHC Vinukonda) to newly allotted primary vision center/secondary vision center at Area hospital, Narasaraopeta vide Rc.No.446/E6/2018, dated 03.02.2018. The Nodal Officer, A.P Tele ophthalmology services has again reallocated to vision center, CHC, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District vide, order dated 15.05.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation, dated 15.05.2019 requesting to treat the period from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 i.e., 191 days BDI as duty period through the District Medical and Health Officer, Guntur vide Rc.No.1202/E2/2019, dated 25.05.2019. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Guntur i.e., the 1st respondent has issued speaking orders to the petitioner, stating that he has no involvement in the changing the orders of reallocation of the individual from Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta vide this office Rc.No.879/A3/2018, dated 15.10.2019.
4. Heard Ms. T. Surya Prabhavathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Medical Health & FW appearing for the respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the 5th respondent interrupted the services of the petitioner from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 by forcibly relieving him from duty at Secondary Vision Center of 5 Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta without any valid Government orders, the petitioner made a representation, dated 15.05.2019 to the respondents seeking to regularize the said period. But, without considering the said representation, the 1st respondent has passed the order vide Rc.No.879/A3/2018, dated 15.10.2019, stating that the 1st respondent has no involvement in changing the orders of reallocation of the individual from Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta (Secondary Vision Center) to CHC, Chilakaluroipeta, Guntur District(Vision Center), which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders.
6. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the same.
7. Perused the record.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner herein earlier field WP No.45263 of 2018 before this Court and this Court has granted interim direction vide IA No.2 of 2018 in WP No.45263 of 2018, dated 13.12.2018 as prayed for, which reads as follows:
"In the light of G.O.Ms.No.124, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (81) Department, dated 13.10.2015, which demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare. Andhra Pradesh, is the competent authority in relation to all service matters and seniority of the staff working in the Community Health Centres which were transferred from the control of the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare to the control of the Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Vaidya U Vidhana Parishad, and given the fact that it was the Director who issued the proceedings dated 17.01.2018 in relation to the posting of the petitioner at Narasaraopet, we are at a loss to understand as to how the Nodal Officer, A.P. Tele Ophthalmology Services, Guntur, would have power to play around with the 6 allocations made by the Director. On the face of it, the Nodal Officer seems to have no competence to sit in appeal over the allocations made by the Director.
There shall accordingly be an interim direction and interim suspension as prayed for.
9. As seen from the impugned proceedings vide Rc No.879/A3/2018, dated 15.10.2019 of the 1st respondent, wherein, it is observed that:
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Para Medical Ophthalmic Officer and he has been transferred on 30.06.2018, but posting orders were issued only on 06.01.2019 and the period from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 is not being considered as Compulsory Wait. The petitioner, in that regard, gave a representation to the respondents 1 and 3 on 15.05.2019 to treat the interregnum period of 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 as Compulsory Wait, but no orders are passing by the first respondents as yet.
10. On perusal of the material on record, it is observed that the petitioner was working as Para Medical Ophthalmic Officer and he has been transferred on 30.06.2018, but posting orders were issued only on 06.01.2019 and the period from 30.06.2018 to 06.01.2019 is not being considered as Compulsory Wait.
11. It is also to be noted that the proceedings in Rc No.879/A3/2018- 19, dated 01.07.2019 of the 1st respondent, wherein it is observed that :
"Further, it is evidently clear the RDM & HS, Guntur has no involvement in changing the orders of reallocation of the individual from Area Hospital, Narasaraopet (secondary vision/Arch EHC Chilakaluripet, Guntur District (Vision Centre). Hence, this office is not concerned and responsible for the orders issued by the DCHS APVVP, Guntur in reallocation of place, due to which, the individual is aggrieved."
12. On a plain reading of the above, it appears that, whatever the RDM & GS stated that he is not concerned and responsible for the orders issued by the DCHS, APVVP, Guntur in reallocation of place, are not tenable and 7 moreover it is bounden duty of the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner by treating the interregnum period of 30.6.2018 to 06.01.2019 as compulsory wait. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition while setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.879/A3/2018, dated 15.10.2019 issued by the 1st respondent, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with Rules, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 28 .03 .2025 TM/Gvl 8 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7378/2020 Date : 28.03.2025 TM/Gvl