Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Note Sheet bl dk;Z;kstuk ij Hkkjr ljdkj ds lkFk us'kuy izkstsDV dksvkfMZus'ku desVh ¼,u0ih0lh0lh0½ dh cSBd esa fopkj&foe'kZ ds mijkUr vko';d Lohd`fr izkIr gksxhA Hkkjr ljdkj Lrj ls izkIr Lohd`fr ds lkFk jkT; dk;Z;kstuk dks izeq[k lfpo] fpfdRlk LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k dh v/;{krk esa xfBr jkT; LokLF; lfefr dh dk;Zdkjh lfefr ,oa eq[; lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kklu dh v/;{krk esa xfBr 'kklh fudk; ds lEeq[k vuqeksnukFkZ iqu% izLrqr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA iqujhf{kr jkT; dk;Z;kstuk Hkkjr ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;s tkus gsrq i=kys[k lEeq[k izLrqr gSA lgefr dh n'kk esa i= ij gLrk{kj djuk pkgsaA d`i;k o"kZ 2011&12 dh jkT; ,u0vkj0,p0,e0 dk;Z ;kstuk ds fo"k; esa i`"B 1&2 ij nh x;h fVIi.kh dk voyksdu djuk pkgsaA la;qDr lfpo] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk la'kks/ku gsrq Hksts x;s lq>koksa dk lekos'k dk;Z ;kstuk esa dj fy;k x;k gSA d`i;k voxrkFkZ@vkns'kkFkZ 15-4-11 ¼uhrk pkS/kjh½ v/;{k dk;Zdkjh lfefrA jkT; LokLF; lfefr jkT; LokLF; lfefr jk"Vzh; xzkeh.k LoLFk fe'kuA ¼vuwi feJk½ eq[; lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA jkT; dk;Zdze izcU/ku bdkbZA jk"Vzh; xzkeh.k LokLF; fe'ku m0iz0 9] txr ukjk;u jksM] y[kuÅ** From the aforesaid perusal of the note-sheets, it appears that on 15th April, 2011, a note was prepared with regard to revised P.I.P. That was signed by Dr. Aruna Narain, General Manager, N.R.H.M and Dr. Madhu Sharma, General Manager(Planning). It has also been signed by Neeta Chaudhary, Chairman, Executive Committee, which has been counter-singed by Sri Anoop Misra, Chief Secretary,Government of U.P., Lucknow. It has been submitted by Mission Director that no further record is available with the Mission Directorate with regard to revised P.I.P. It has been submitted by Sri Lokesh Kumar, General Manager, Administration that there is no official noting on record which has necessitated to prepare the official note on 15th April, 2011. From the perusal of original record with regard to original P.I.P., it appears that all the ground work was done by the authorities while preparing the P.I.P. and a decision was taken to appoint the Ayush Doctors under the scheme. A detailed discussion was held amongst various authorities while preparing the P.I.P. At the time of perusal of record, it has been submitted by learned Chief Standing Counsel that P.I.P. was revised and modified in pursuance to the request made by the government of India to reduce the budget. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has provided photostat copy of one of the note-sheets during the course of the day itself. The note-sheets in two pages at the face of record shows to be not the part and parcel of original record containing the official notes while preparation of the first P.I.P. A specific query has been made during the course of hearing from the learned Chief Standing Counsel that who is to officiating on the post of Mission Director, in case the original incumbent is not available or relieved from the job. Sri D.K.Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel wants time to make submission. The officers present in the court have also failed to reply as to who was officiating as Mission Director during the period from 15th April April, 2009 to 29th April, 2011. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has produced the photostat copy of letter dated 23rd March 2011, which contains the minutes of the Meeting. The same is taken on record. Sri I.H.Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, submits that Government of India has not taken any decision to revise the budget in pursuance to the original P.I.P. dated 28th March, 2011. He submits that the budget allocated by the Government of India on the basis of original P.I.P. will continue and Government of India is likely to provide funds in terms of other P.I.Ps., but, a decision is to be taken and the matter is pending with the authorities for approval. However, he has invited attention of this court towards writ petition no. 816(S/B)/2011. He submits that after the original P.I.P. dated 28th March, 2011, the Government of India, has not issued any direction for reduction of budget. Judgment reserved."

FINDINGS 68- In view of above, to sum up:-

(i) State Government has not approached the Court with clean hands and initially while filing counter affidavit a defence is taken that because of non supply of medicines by the central government, State took a decision not to appoint Male Ayush doctors, but latter on the State came forward with a case that on account of reduction of budget, State was compelled to take a decision not to appoint Male Ayush doctors and pharmacists while revising the PIP. Both the grounds set up by the State seems to be an afterthought by shifting of stand.