IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.173 of 2009 PRASHANT KUMAR @ PRASANT KUMAR, S/o Sri Brahmanand Pandey, resident of village + P.O. + P.S. Phulwaria, District-Gopalganj (Bihar)…. .Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through District Magistrate/The Collector, Gopalganj 2. The District Magistrate/The Collector, District-Gopalganj (Bihar) 3. The District Magistrate-cum-The Chairman, District Health Society, Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj (Bihar) 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Member, District Health Society, Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj (Bihar) ………………………….Respondents. ----------- 2. 17.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate –cum-the Chairman, District Health Society, Gopalganj (respondent No. 3) and the Civil Surgeon-cum-Member, District Health Society, Gopalganj (respondent No. 4). Reply to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Health Manager. Period for appointment was for two years. It was purely a contractual service. The appointment was made by the State Health Society, Bihar in compliance of the policy of the Government to monitor the management of health services to Primary Health Centre in the district level. The District Magistrate of the concerned district is the Chairman 2 of District Level Committee. The Civil Surgeon and others are its members. Petitioner’s case is that the advertisement for appointment of Health Manager in Gopalganj district was published in the year, 2007. He also applied for the post, appeared before the Interview Board and finally selected for his appointment at Primary Health Centre, Kataiya. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 21.03.2007. An agreement was executed in between the appointee (petitioner) and the Rogi Kalyan Samiti. The terms and conditions as mentioned in the agreement were that: (i) the duration of service will be for two years; (ii) the service can be terminated in between if it is not found satisfactory & (iii) for termination of service, one month prior notice or one month’s salary for the subsequent month will be mandatory. The petitioner was also asked to file an affidavit regarding his antecedent which was duly complied with. The termination letter was issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Member, District Health Society on 01.12.2008 in which no reason has been assigned. This is the order which is under challenge in this writ application. The impugned order has been issued without fulfilling the mandatory condition mentioned in the agreement as well as it is completely silent as no reason has been assigned. The mandatory condition of one month’s prior notice/one month’s 3 salary for the subsequent month has not been complied with. Counter affidavit is completely silent on these two points. In the counter affidavit, simply it has been stated that the petitioner misbehaved with the District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, District Health Society, Gopalganj, in the meeting held for appraisal of the work done by the Health Managers appointed on contract basis. When the petitioner was questioned about his performance in place of submitting satisfactory explanation, he misbehaved. It is not stated in the counter affidavit that one month’s prior notice was issued before issuance of the termination order. However, it is admitted in the counter affidavit that till date, one month’s salary has not been paid. The respondents are waiting for approval and allotment of fund. It has been stated in the reply to the counter affidavit that in the meeting which was held under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, was attended by other members. The petitioner had not misbehaved or used any foul language rather he raised a question regarding non-payment of salary which was stopped for three months. Asking for remuneration cannot be treated as misbehaviour. So far the satisfactory service is concerned, the petitioner has annexed certificates issued by the concerned authorities in support of this fact that his services were found satisfactory and the Primary Health Centre being represented by the petitioner was considered 4 as a centre where all government policies were being monitored and conducted properly. Considering these facts and finding that the mandatory condition for termination of service during the contract period has not been complied with. The impugned order dated 01.12.2008 issued by the respondent No. 4 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner, make payment of his salary for all these period and will allow the petitioner to continue on the post in terms of agreement. This application is allowed. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )