Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Om Prakash Tiwari & Anr on 17 May, 2011
Author: S. K. Katriar
Bench: S. K. Katriar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1656 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF PRIMARY HEALTH
SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA
3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY HEALTH SERVICES,
BIHAR, PATNA
4. IN-CHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, NEW
GARDANIBAGH HOSPITAL, PATNA
5. THE COMMITTEE PRESIDED OVER BY ................
PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA
---- Appellants/Respondents.
Versus
1. OM PRAKASH TIWARI S/O LATE RAM SHRAY
TIWARI R/O BAJRANG COLONY,
PHULWARISARIF, P.S.- PHULWARISARIF, DISTT.-
PATNA
2. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL
OFFICER, HAZARIBAG, RANCHI
---- Respondent/Petitioner.
-----------
3. 17.5.2011Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.2 for the appellants, and Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur for the respondents. In view of the order of a Division Bench of this Court of 11.2.2010, in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. V. Sohan Roy, 2010(2) P.L.J.R. 397, the present appeal is referred to Hon'ble Mr. Uday Sinha, a former Judge of this Court, one- man committee constituted by the Division Bench. The issues in the present appeal are referred to him in terms of paragraph 8 of the terms of reference indicated in the said order dated 11.2.2010, and form part of this order. The same 2 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"8.Regard being had to the concession given by Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General after obtaining instructions from the competent authorities of the State and the concession given by the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, we proceed to record the terms and conditions which would form spine of the present order. The terms and conditions in seriatim are as follows:-
(a) The directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge against which the present appeals are preferred would stand nullified.
(b) A one man committee of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, a retired Judge of this Court, shall look into the various facets of nature of appointments that were given to the writ petitioners with a view to adjudicate the legality of their appointments and continuance in service.
(c) The committee shall hold its sittings in the building situate in House No.42, Harding Road, Patna.
(d) The State Government shall provide the committee with a secretariat consisting of a Secretary (not below the rank of Joint Secretary of the State cadre) and also sufficient number of stenographers (not less than five) as also three orderly peons who may be engaged on contract basis.
(e) One man committee shall be provided with all the facilities in terms of salary and perks that are made available to the sitting Judge of a High Court minus the amount of monthly pension.
(f) One man committee shall make its all endeavours to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of commencement of its first sitting. The committee shall fix its first of hearing in the 3rd week of March, 2010.
(g) The employee-writ petitioners shall file their individual written brief synopsis of their cases along with the connected documents in three copies before the committee on the first date or 3 any adjourned date as determined by the committee. The State Government shall also file three copies of written individual rejoinder along with the documents sought to be relied within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid written brief synopsis or within such extended period as directed by the one man Committee.
(h) Additionally the State Government shall also furnish any other document/information as directed by one man committee so that the whole issue of legality of the appointment of the employee writ petitioner is assessed and decided by it in an objective manner for once and all.
(i) The one man committee shall also afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and in course of such hearing it would be open to the affected employee writ petitioners to satisfy the said committee that his/her appointment was tenable in law and there was/is no reason to unsettle his/her appointment.
(j) It would also be open to the employee-writ petitioners to demonstrate and establish before the said one man committee that his/her case is similar to those of the persons who have been retained and/or reinstated in service in the wake of the report of the screening committee headed by the Director-in-Chief of Health Department constituted in terms of the earlier directions of this court in the order dated 26.6.2006 in L.P.A. no. 946 of 2003 (State of Bihar Vs. Purendra Sulan Kit) and its analogous cases, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 386.
(k) Neither the State Government nor the employee writ petitioners however shall be permitted to refer to and/or rely on any of the findings recorded by any of the Enquiry Committee earlier before the one man committee.
(l) The other modalities of scrutiny of individual appointment of the employee-writ petitioners on the basis of documentary evidence to be led by both the parties would be decided by the one man committee.
(m) The employees who have been working and getting the benefit of pay till the date of filing writ 4 petition shall not be dislodged from the service pending enquiry and passing of the final order by the committee.
(n) The employees whose joining has been accepted by the competent authority pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge may attend the office and do their duties but shall not draw the pay and their pay shall be given only after the matter is finalized by one man committee
(o) All other employees writ petitioners terminated from service would be reinstated only in case the committee records finding in their favour holding their appointment and continuation in service to be legal.
(p) Such of the employees writ petitioners who would continue in service during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings before the one man committee would be entitled for payment of salary from the date of this order and till passing of the final order by the one man committee even if the committee would not approve their initial appointment and continuation in service.
(q) If either of the parties is adversely affected by the decision of the committee in any manner, it would be open for them to assail the same before the appropriate legal forum.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid decision dated 11.2.2010, of the Division Bench, in State of Bihar V. Sohan Roy, and the analogous appeals. The date of disposal by the committee is suitably extended.
( S. K. Katriar,J. )
Vinay/ ( S. P. Singh, J.)