^" •sKifs C^2- Vs RESPON&ENTS IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (^') N0'?-5~^ OF 2010 ^' PETITIONER Dr. &.R. Sharma, son of Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, agd about 52 years, presently working as Assistant Medical Officer (Ayurved Officer) Ayurved Aushadhalaya, Kukdur, Dist Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the .Secretary, Department of Public Health <& Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. Director, Indian Medicine & Homeopathy, Raipur (C6) S.Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C(5) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pandaria, Ciistrict Kabirdham (C6) 5. Superintendent cum District Ayurved Officer, District Ayurved Aushadhalaya, Kabirdham, bist Kabirdham. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN&IA 1; PRTICULARS OF PETITIONER;- ? ~'• ~ / ^ ^^T^^" Asmentioned in the cause title. ^^TtA^^'J Z. PARTICULARS OF RESPONbENTS;- A.S mentioned in the cause title. .O^S^ ^M^ y^-ty^ ^' .<^-' .„•' y .^f' >iS" Er 3 [ : . 1<1 s, f\v -?'? HIGH^OURTQFCHHjLTnSGARHA:rBILA8PUR WRITPETmON(S) No. 7589 of2010 PETmONER RE8PONDENTS Dr. D.R.Shamia. VERSUS State ofcaihattisgarii & Others. WRir PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF •THE CONSTITU'riON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satfsh K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Dinesh R.K.Tiwari, Advocate for Ifae petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State/respondents 1,2, OKDERfOKAL) (Passed on 03rd day of Januaiy, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petftion is to the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby fhe representation offhe petitioner fw absorbing the Ayurved Aushadhalaya, Kukdur, District Kabirdham, and its employees in the State Govenunent, has been rejected. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appoiiited as Vaidya on 09.03.1988 and was posted at Ayurved Aushadhalaya, Mohtaikala, Janpad Paaehayat, Pandariya, District Kaba-fBiam. Qn 31.031989, a policy decision was taken by the then State Oovernment to abswb 126 homeopathy dispensaries, nm and managed by Janpad Panchayat m the State, includmg Ayurvedic Aushadhalaya, Kukdur, where the petitioner is posted. However, when the petifioner and its dispensary was not absorbed by the State Govemment, Ihe petitiona- aiade various correspondences to the State authorities which did not yield any result, tinis, he preferred a vmt petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 4296/2010. The said petition was disposed ofvideorder dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure P/3) granting liberty to fhe petitioner to 'yn ^. ^Ai ws 81 B8B is • •g ^ make a representaticm raising all his grievaaees, to the respondent No. 1, who in tum shall take decision in accordance witfa law. Pufsuant to the said order, the petitioner made a representation on 25.08.2010 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner was thereafter called to appear m person on 15.09.2010 and his representation was dismissed on 19.11.2010 on the grouad that the proposal to absorb Kukdur Audhadhalaya, has been witfadrawn by the State Govemmeat vide orderdated 20.08.2007. 3. The petitioner seeks relief of absoq^tion 011 Ifae basis of state policy decision dated 31.03.1989. The petitioner failedto raise the issuefor a considerable long time, till tiie petitioner filed a petition in this Court on 05.08.2010 which was disposed ofon 09.08.2010, reserviag liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. 4. The State Goverament, in ite iaipugned memo dated 19.11.2010, clearly observed that the Ayurvedic dispensaries were handed over to the District Panehavat under the mano daXed 21.05.2001. The proposal fhereafter tbr taking over ofthe dispensari®.was rejected on 20.08.2007. Thus, the Ayurvedic Aushadhalaya, Kukdur, where tiie petiti<mer was posted as an employee ofJila Paachayat continues to be employee ofJila Panchayat and as such, no du'ection can be issued to tiie Govemment to absarb the Ayurvedic Aushadhal^a, Kukdur wth its employees by the State Govemment. 5. The petition sufFers from an inordmate, uneiq>lamed delay and laches. The petitioner is trying to take up the issue wfaich arose in Ite year 1989, today. The deeision ofthe State Govemment to take ovsr the private institutions and its employees and absorb in the Govemment ^ estabUshment is a poUcy dedsion and &lls withm the domaia of administrative action. 6. K is trite law that the Court should relrain itself from interfering with the policy decision unless the same is contrary to the pubUc interest, provisions of law or against tfae constitufional as well as statutory provisions. 7. The petitioner has failed to establish any yound as aforest^ed. This petition is devoid ofmerit aad is aceordingly dismissed. Sd/- . . , SattehK-AgB&om ^ Judge Aimt •^SJJ -^•:;s?- "