- ^^ws;^ ^ww ^^.vo^ g^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No. .^-r&r~/2005 i PETITIONER y ^ —••? ^6\^.<?-T ^,.-'••^8 •s' >.\5><; •^:' '^ a RESPONDENTS R.N. Netam S/o- Late Shri C.S. Netam Aged about 49 years District Health and Faraily Welfare Officer Jagdalpur District Hospital Jagdalpur (C.G) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Thr,ough:-Secretaiy Health and Family Welfare Departraent Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Secretary General Administration Department Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^3. State of Madhya Pradesh Through:- Secretary Health and Family Welfare .Department ^-2. ^w A. 5. The Director, Directorate Public Health Services, Raipur Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry personal and Public grievances Khan Markef New Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. $3;^ <n»m*<gj^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR fes-' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.5565 OF 2005 R.N. Netam Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State. Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advoc&te for the respondent No.5. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 31st day of March, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant promotion to the post of Chief Medical and Health Officerw.e.f. 21/01/2003 with consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initially appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 15/10/1982 in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. According to the petitioner, in the year 2002, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "the DPC") meeting was convened in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the said meeting, name of the petitioner along with two other doctors were called for consideration. The DPC without considering the name of the petitioner, promoted his juniors namely; Dr. (Smt.) Madhu Shrivastava and Dr. (Smt.) Jaya Phuljhale to the post of Gynecologist on the basis of recommendation made by the DPC on 24/-10/200T 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06/06/2003 (Annexure P/8) to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, l-1ealth and Family Welfare Department raising all of ^ .)!''",,—«!»;"a f*'3 if :"^~,. '^^ '•i'».r ' Igas" til: his grievances, but no action has been taken. Thereafter, the State of Chhattisgarh published the gradation list as on 01/04/2003 (Annexure P/9). In the said list, the name of the petitioner find place at serial No.7. According to the petitioner, in the gradation list, from serial No. 1 to 4, have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, serial No.5 is presently posted in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer. Again the petitioner submitted representations d.ated 31/08/2004 and 27/09/2004 (Annexure P/10), but the same do not fructify. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 06/11/2004 (Annexure P/11). In spite of the above facts, the respondent authorities have not taken any initiative to promote the petitioner to the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, submits that in fact, the DPC of the State of Madhya Pradesh took a decision in the year 2002, thereagainst the petitioner preferred the instant petition in the year 2005 without explaining delay and laches properly. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. Learned counsel further submits that since Dr. (Smt.) Madhu Shrivastava and Dr. (Smt.) Jaya Phuljhale were promoted by the State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of recommendation made by it in the year 1999 i.e. before formation of new State of Chhattisgarh, the petitionfii^ cannot ctaim parity with the doctors who have been promoted on the basis of recommendation made by the DPC prior to the formation of State of Chhattisgarh. The name of the petitioner was never recommended at any point of time prior to^ •<\ 1 ^W& 'ic . ;.; •i&W formation of State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel alsosubmits that the respondent State of Chhattisgarh is going to hold the meeting of the DPC in near future and they would consider the name of all eligible candidates for promotion in accordance with law. 6. On careful consideration of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counse] for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that on creation of State of Chhatttisgarh, pursuant to the enforcement of Madhya Pradesh Reorginisation Act, 2000, the 'employees were allocated to the State of Madhya and State of Chhattisgarh. Services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarhand thereafter, he became employee of the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. The petitioner, in this petition claims promotion on the basis of the promotion of his alleged juniors Dr. (Smt.) Madhu Shrivastava and Dr. (Smt.) Jaya Phuljhale on the post of Gynecologist pursuant to the recommendation made by the DPC on 24/10/2008 in the present State of Madhya Pradesh as on the date when recommendation was made, the petitioner was the employee of the State of Chhattisgarh and others were the employees of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 8. Thus, the petitioner was not rightly considered by the DPC in the State of Madhya Pradesh and claiming parity on the basis of promotion of the officers of State of Madhya Pradesh in the State of Chhattisgarh is unsustainable, as both are independent States and the errfployee of both the States are governed by the service conditions of their respective States. s .A 's^^-v 9. Reliance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in Sarabjit Singh v. Ex-Major B.D. Gupta and Others is not relevant to the facts and dispute involved in this.case. 10. In view of foregoing, this petition is frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the State Government made it clear that the State of Chhattisgarh has not held any DPC for consideration of the cases of the employees in the subject matter of the petition, for promotion to the higher post and DPC is likely to be held soon wherein all the eligible candidates would be considered and in that event also no grievance of the petitioner survives. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. There shall be no order asto costs. Arun