IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2905 of 2010 Reserved on: 13.9.2011 Date of decision: 15.10.2011 Jagdev Sharma …. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.3.2010, whereby he was directed to report for duty to S.M.O, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur with immediate effect till further orders. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Dental Attendant in the Dental Clinic in District Hospital, Bilaspur since 1995. On 30.10.1998 he was adjusted against the vacant post of Dental Attendant and was directed to work under the supervision of the Senior Medical 2 Officer(Dental) Incharge Dental Clinic, Bilaspur. It is not disputed that he has been attending various dental camps. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had made a representation that he be granted the scale of Dental Attendant and because of this, the State is bent upon transferring the petitioner. According to the petitioner he has by now gained a lot of experience in the dental department and, therefore, he should not be transferred outside the same. 4. At the outset it may be noticed that the petitioner has been retained at Bilaspur itself and this is not a case of transfer in the normal sense where a person is transferred from one station to another. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that since he has been representing that he be granted the scale of Dental Attendant, the authorities with mala fide intention have directed that he be posted to another post. The earlier representation in this behalf was rejected on 2nd September, 2003. In this petition, the petitioner has not prayed for grant of scale of Dental Attendant, but he only prays that since the post of Dental Attendant is lying vacant he may be retained against the same. 3 5. The stand of the State is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Class-IV employee. He did not have the qualifications and was temporarily adjusted against the post of Dental Attendant (Class-IV) but now has been again directed to perform in the capacity of Class-IV itself. It has further been stated that after the issuance of the impugned order on 18.3.2010, the petitioner did not comply with the same and when he was directed to explain why he was not complying with the same, he proceeded on leave on medical grounds on 27.3.2010. A telegram was sent to the petitioner by respondent No.4 on 7.4.2010 to join duty or in the alternative to appear before the Medical Board in case of illness. Another telegram was sent on 24.4.2010. The petitioner did not reply to any of these communications and thereafter on 30.4.2010 a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner as to why action be not taken against him. It was only thereafter that the petitioner filed the reply on 3.5.2010 through his counsel. The petitioner was directed to present himself before the District Medical Board at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur with complete record of his medical treatment on 22.5.2010 vide letter dated 17.5.2010. The petitioner did not comply with the 4 directions of the department, but filed the present petition on 23.5.2010. 6. On 3.6.2010 this Court passed an order permitting the petitioner to join the transferred station without prejudice to his contention raised in the petition and thereafter he joined the department on 18.6.2010. He has simultaneously submitted an application for grant of leave on medical grounds w.e.f. 2.3.2010 to 17.6.2010. The certificate has been issued by a private practitioner of Mandi. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bilaspur and was a government employee working in the hospital. There is no explanation why he should have got himself examined from a private practitioner and not in the hospital. Surprisingly, the petitioner became fit to join service soon after the Court directed that he can join at his transferred place. This shows that the petitioner is not a person who believes in obeying his employer. He had no vested right to be retained against the post of Dental Attendant and this was a discretionary relief being claimed by him. The manner in which the petitioner has acted in going on leave without caring for the patients whose interest he professes to protect disentitles him from grant of any relief by this Court. He is a Class-IV employee 5 and has been adjusted against a Class-IV post in Bilaspur itself. Scale of pay is the same. The petitioner was never appointed as Dental Attendant but only adjusted against the said post and the employer is free to post him on the post for which he was initially selected. Hence, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. October 15, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge