IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11011 of 2006 TEJ NARAYAN YADAV S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR YADAV R/O VILLAGE- INARWA, P.O.- JAGESHWAR ASTHAN, P.S.-PHULPARAS, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENTOF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI 7. THE INCHARGE, MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, GHOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ………….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Sri. L.K.Yadav For the State : Suresh Kumar AC to G.P.IV --------------- 5. 10.05.2011 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani respondent no.6, after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the petitioner. As the pleadings are complete the writ petition has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. The petitioner has filed this writ application stating therein that he was appointed as a clerk in the Health Department in Madhubani district. He asserts that he was appointed on 1.10.1986. The appointment letter is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He further states that he was thereafter transferred by the 2 Regional Deputy Director Health by order as contained in Annexure-2. Petitioners states that after August 2000, he was not paid anything inspite of his various writ petitions and ultimately he has filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit that has been filed, the stand taken is that the petitioner wrongly claimed that he was appointed on 1.10.1986 in as much as the service book submitted by him itself shows that he was appointed vide memo no. 1301 dated 14.6.1989, which was issued from the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani by Dr. Tatarwey. It is stated that on examination of records, it is found that the said memo was in fact, issued to the Incharge Medical Officer, Jainagar in respect to Sri Mukti Lal Yadav in another matter and had nothing to do with the petitioner’s appointment. It is further stated that the said Dr. Tatarwey, Civil Surgeon-cum- Medical Officer, who is supposed to have issued appointment letter to the petitioner had superannuated more than 2 years prior to the date of letter. It is further stated that it is under those circumstances, petitioner and others were asked to show cause by the Civil Surgeon vide memo no. 3 966, dated 19.5.2001 but the petitioner then absconded. He and others refused to receive the show cause and were traceless. It is accordingly submitted by the State that the petitioner had got fictitious and forged letter of appointment and is not entitled to any relief. Having considered the matter, in my view, considering the nature of allegations, before petitioner can assert his right as an employee of the State the onus is upon him to establish the validity of his appointment letter, I therefore, direct the petitioner to appear before the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon within fifteen days from today with a copy of this order along with all papers relating to his appointment including interview letter, call letter, and other particulars. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon would then hear the petitioner and after enquiry into the matter would pass appropriate order punctually within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. If the order is adverse to the petitioner he would communicate the same with detailed reasons to the petitioner. If he finds that the petitioner has been duly appointed, he would record 4 this fact on the service book of the petitioner and treat the petitioner as continuing in service with all consequential benefits. This order must be complied within the time frame as stated above. It is however made clear that so long as final orders are not passed, petitioner would not be deemed to be working. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Fahad. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)