1 ^)^r^cs ~Q^> 90 .indqs^p-q.^STQ :'ui^poIi-OHd j:e^[j:OM q:4~[^3H esodj:ndT4-[n]/q-MdN uie^ nqpepq Tjcqg O/S:'S^A£^ pe6v me^ j:Gpuns me^ j:ndu[S^p--q.'=}-STQy q4pdpjpu^<3 : OHd ejTM PTN esj:nis[ Aj:^T-[Txnv:H]S[V jnCnM UT^sofiv o/p^saA ^^ P^SV jnCn^ G^Tuopq G^^npq 90 ^ndqs^p-44STQ- puu^s ^ DHd OJTM p-c]/q esjnjst Aj:eT-[Txnv:NNV CuT]/q dT^-cqa o/p's.zA ^^ pe6v CUTH e^Tqpng -UM 90 j:ndqs^p-44STQ 'ui^pori-3Hd je^[j:OM q4TP3H esodjndT4-[n]/\[-MdN B.i^UTBd-S'HT^qS o/s<s^A 92 pe&v ejre^TGd q6uTg me^ee^d 90 jrndqs^p -44STQ '^PL[qOG^^Pm9S -OHd j:9^[j[OM q4TP^H esod^ndT4-[nN-MdW S^Q T.cpqpng TJ:L[S 's^A Q£ P^6¥ pps^^d -c^MqseuAnqg 93 jndqsep-^^STa ^Tpjes -DHd j:e^[jOM q^-TeeH esodj:ndT4-[up\[~MdN ^PpTS-s TJ:L[S o/s'sjA 92 pa6v J^pTg J^Uin^ TPp 33 ^ndqsep-^^STQ ^TTncu°S -OHd ^e^[j:OM q4TGeH esodj:ndT4-[nH-MdN 4^6Bqg-^-^ Tjqg o/s's^A -[^ p36v q.^fipqg a^mn^ qsTq.PS 90 ^ndqsPp-44STQ- euu^s : DHd ejTMPTN es^n|S[ A.TeT-[Txnv:]/q]S[V u^suqop Tj:qs o/P 's^rA ^£ pe&v UL[OP ^meeg •4mg 30 j:ndqsep-44STG J'TJPA^[UOS -DHd j:e^[j:OM qq.T^3H esodj:ndT4^nH-Md]/\[ UIB^-P Tjqs o/s's.rA ^^ pe6v q.^S^qg UI^H ^^MqseuTQ 30 .indqser-^^STQ ^uiepo^-OHd ^8^[j:OM q4~[peH 3Sod.zndT4^nH-MdN mp^ qp^S T^qs O/S'SJ:A ^£ pe6v UIPH ^TT^S •OT •6 .^yc^ .^n.lS^"-' ^ p\ SHaNOI.EIJ.ad SOOZ 30 ^79 J '" ON Noi3;i.iaa .LI>IM Hnasviia;HHW9si.Lj.vHH3:a^u;vDi<mp so .LHQOO HSIH sss, NI -ISNS1 ^ ^,^S^S^ ^—""•—'^r-'Ey-;' ^^ ! .".' '^- '^ ( ^ "\ 11. Ku.Neetu Ambasta Aged 24 yrs^d/o Shri A. Ambast MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-PathalgaQn^ Dis.tt-Jas.hpur C.G 12. Abhinath Ram Chouhan Aged 26 yrs^s/o S.Ram MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-DuIdula^ Distt-Jashpur CG 13. Dev Nath ram Aged 25 yrs^s/o Shri N>Ram MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-DuIdula^ Distt-Jashpur CG 14. Shri Sheetal Sai Aged 33 yrsys/o Shri Duna Sai MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-S.anna^ Distt-Jashpur CG 15. Shiv Prasad Ram Aged 28 yrs^s/o Shri D.Nath MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-ManQra^ Distt-jashpur C.G 16. Rai Mohan Ram Bhagat Aged 31 Yrs^s/oShri B.R.Bhagat MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-ManQra^ Distt-Jas.hpur CG 17. Deepak Chandra Prakash Aged 22 yrs^s/o Shri G.Ram MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-Lodam^ Distt-jashpur CG 18. Subhash Chandra Sharma Aged 24 yrs^ s/oShriR .C.Sharma Pharmasist-PHC-Kaliya Distt-Jashpur CG 19. Dilip Kumar Yadav Aged 22 Yrs^s/Q K.S.Yadav MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-LQdam^ Distt-Jashpur C.G 20. Ku. Indumati KiranTigga Aged 31 yrs^d/o Shri P.Tigga ANM:Auxciliary Nurse Mid Wife PHC. : S.anna -Distt-Jashpur C.G 21. Ku. Indumati Lakada- Aged 32 yrs, d/o L.Lakada MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-Lodam^ Dis.tt-Jas|npur C.G <^QJ^><^J^-^<S^ '&.^J 22. Girvar Das Bairagi Aged 28 yrs^s/o S.D.Bairagi MPW-Multipurpose Health Worker PHC-Duldula^ Dis.tt-Jas.hpur CG 23. Ku.Saroj Akka aged 35 yrs^s/o B.Akka Dressor grade-2, PHC-S.anna/ Distt-Jashpur C.G -VERSUS- BESPONDENTS ii,i S'i V- 1. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through : The Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Health and Family Welfare Department : Mantralaya : DKS Bhavan : Raipur CG 2. The Joint Director, Health Services^ Directorate :Health Services Raipur CG 3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer^ Jashpurnagar, Distt - Jas.hpur CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 XI-HC-22 3^T ^l^ld^, ^T{i<M4l^, fcldiy^ 311^1 ^5iCt» ^1^<<TT^HTW"'""""T"'"" ^[ 200 3^"^' (<riJ<=h3TT^?T $b^I<t)^f?cT 3Tr^T^<n"^R:^f?cT 29-4-2005 On a mention being made/ Mr. R. Dayal Shrivastava, o Mr. Sanjay Shyam AgrGwa respondents. W.P.No.1643/2005 fiied No.1515/2005 fiied by Kum. No.1644/2005 fiied by Dev Singh tjie of the petitioners as Health -M^€^+ their services have been Qsws^^ expiration of two years' period,| therefore, they have chailenged of the orders dated 31st Marchl Heaith Officer, Jashpurnagar. disposed of by this common orde Heard both the counsel on| In W.P.No.1644/2005, the| basis vide orders Annexures P-1 dated 11-7-2003 (Annexure P-^ appointment of the petitioners August. 2003. In W.P.No.1643/^ issued in compiiance of the tettet chN?<n41vi ^i^<nT^*feT:^'<Ri^i< ^3^R'3TT^T matter is taken up for hearing. )unsel for the petitioners. , ©overnmentAdvocate for the State/ |by Salik Ram <& 22 others; W.P. A^xmta Naidu & five others; and WP. Ram & 30 others relate to appointment Wor|<ers for aj)eriod of two years, and now Ju by the impugned order before the after giving them one month's notice, t'he Itegality, propriety and correctness 2005 issued by the Chief MedicaJ & l^ence, the above writpetitions are being admission. petitioners were appointed on contract S3 to P-63 in compliance of the letter ) issued by respondent No.l, cxnd the was for two years with effect from )005 appointment of 23 petitioners was dated 11-7-2003 (Annexure P-2) under XI-HC-22 ^^ S^T^TraTo^T, ^Tf1<H4l(o, fs)diy^< 3ll^l M5<®h wR^TTgwrar'""""'""""4^ w^ 200 3:n^?T^T RFTW^TI^T $h^|cb^T1?cf i \ v 3T^T^<TT^R:^rfi?T - -^, orders Annexures P-26 to H petitioners appointment WQS aiso 7-2003 (Annexure P-2) under The main ground taken appointment of the petitioners expire in the month of AUQU^ services cannot be terminated til Mr» R, Daya! Shrivastav^, argued that as per condition petitioners have received one removed from service under tl|i Heaith Workers. He submitted terminated on the ground that Workers their services are be| that as per ciause 8 when the p^i they cannot be removed. On the other hand, Mr.| Advocate ar9ued that ,in th recruitment of traini®^Healt|i w^ek reievance in the facts and <-W5t<^-<-^^ termination fe^^^^^ee^s^ c CM^?^41^ ^HQiT^fte^<f^^j< ^3Tf^T3TI^T 1-4S, and in W.P.No.1515/2005 the issued in comptiance of lett'er dated 11- Anihexures P-9 to P-14. [jn these writ petitions is that the ^as for two years and that is going to J9u^t, 2005; therefore, the petitioners' the expiry of that period< |, learned counset for the petitioners j^o.8 of the appointment letters, the trainin9/ therefore, they cannot be ie pretext that they are nof trained that the petitioners' services are being for the cppointment of trained Health |ig terminated. He further submitted ^titioners have already received training Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, iearned 60vt. pToALO^' termination order the wn4cr for /' . Workers" is innocuous and has no ;ircumstances. This is a simpliciter fe=*^»^^@@^s^cl^use 7 of the appointment letter which envisages that the contract ap|)ointment can be terminated by giving __C^ife^- XI-HC-22 3^ v^l^l<rt^, ^Tfi^^l^, [cK-tl^y 311^1 ^5) Cft W^TTgWTO"""'""""*""" ^[ 200 (t^ 3T1^T^T f^Tf^3:n^r $b^i<^^f?cT 3TI^T ^cTT^ ^f?cT ~-s counfeei contrafct rnonth's prior notice by any of ciause, the termination order petitioners are not entitled for petitions. Having heard learned record. Perusal of the appointm|er were appointed period of two years at the fix^< contmct basis to work as Health! ietters envisages that the giving one month's advance notic^ this condition has been compSiec^ cfouse 8 of the appointment to undergo one week training discharge their duties, even if training in compiiance of this has been given to the employ^ terminate their contract by givir|g has been done in these cases. is no merit in these writ petition^ For this view/1 am suppor'fed the matter of Shailaja Shjvajjrc|o 'l'he parties, and in compliance of that has been passed. Therefore, the any relief sought for in these writ <^i^?^i^^ ^i^<-tT^te^t<[^^i< ^3:rf^T3T7^?T - for the parties, I have perused the trr|ent jetfcers shows that the petjtioners for a :ix^d salary of Rs.2,000/- per month on Workers. Clause 7 of the appointment ra^tGppointmentcan be terminated after by any of the parties. In these cases, with. Even though it is mentioneci in ^ers that the petitioners were required entering into seryice in order to |he petitioners have received one week ^ CIause 7 cannot be ignored. A right T and empbyee both that they can one month's prior notice and the same TI^erefore, I am of the opinion that there by the decision of the Apex Court in Patil vs. President. Hon'ble Khasdar lettters claikse •\ ^ r\ -\ > XI-HC-22 'S^ ^ll^ld^, ^Tft<-ljl<o, fc|diy^< 311^1 4?ich <TW^[T^RT^'''"'""'""""" ^ 200 3TI^T^)T RRt^3TT^T $b^lich^f?cr Soma ^y^ ^ 3Tr^r^RTTW:^f??r -^ wer^ U^S Sanstha and others repor-j school teacher was appointed on probation period her services her termination was valid being terminated at any time without order it WQS mentioned that th| required, but there was a mentio^i certain dr'aw backs in her work, stigma and without enquiry she Apex Court rejecting the plea h< termination order passed by the In the present cases, month's prior notice, and afterg services have been terminated. infirmity in the orders impugned.| In th©resuft, the writ stage itself. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No|s. I.A.Nos.3170/2005, 3205/2005 < then cni^?d41vi wi^ff^ te^ <^i<(-<ii< ^3^T3TI^T fed in (2002) 10 SCC 394Jn which a robation for two years and during that ^er^ terminated, the Apex Court held that a tenure appointment which could be r^tice. In that case, in the termination i^ petitioner's services were no ionger that she was warned in writing about the empbyee chalienged that it is a bould not have been terminated. The sld that durin9 tenure appointment the i|lespondents was valid. contract was terminabie with one vin9 one month's notice the petitioners' fherefore, I do not find any illegality or s pe|('itions are dismissed, at the admission tHie <bnd ^.1176/2005, 1281/2005, 1285/2005, 3206/2005 stand disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (Ifl^^i)