V ^.f^ lS_,2p.a^S2^EAWIfflBffiCT321L. lWpL^^^ AEPl.XCAM'i. Sat; BadbaSai. yif®of' Barlvaash a®ed32 years, resldeifcof MaBBa Cibowk, . Tllsara. Para, BIl^FQ®(H.F.). -T e r s u s- I.Stsrfie of Nadlyra fTitdesti ^tferough Cblef Secretary, Vallabb Bb&wai-i. 2. CbS.ef Wedi.eal ©ffiecr, BILASPuB • ^ ' 3. Asststaat Sargeea lacbarge -Sfeakart Ba»a aBa<el-'t'y Slspeasary) Saadbi Putala. BtEASPBB."""' APPLICAIIOB SECNOaja_^_Ig®...&^tS|!@J ^ BBXBCTALS. .AeS,. 1985 HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSSARH : BiLASPUR S3NGLE BENCH : HGN'BLE SHRi ?^ANiNDRA KiGHAN SHRiVASTAVA.J. WRIT PETiTiON iSi N0.682/2005 PETiTiONER: Srnt. Radha Bai REoPONDENTS: Versus State of M.P. and othere FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORD68 Sd/- Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaSi^ Judge sj i-* tti±iiu^i 111 li>-! ^"' teis, ''-rf*"'"^ "'^ y % llft»..J?/ •^feK^"-- ^ •'^'•'^s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPuR Singie Beneh: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastav^J, PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS WRiT PETITJGN (Si N0.682i'20Q5 Srnt. Radha Bai Versus State of M.P. and others Present: - Shri Ayaz ESiaved, counsei for the petffioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on ..../.?.'..:..June, 2010) By this petition, petitioner has prayed iftat the order dateu 11/12/92 (Annexure A-11) passed by the Chief Medicai and Heaith OfRcer, Bilaspur be quashed and has aiso prayed for direction to respondents to aiiow the petitioner to join as Ward Aaya at Shahari DawaMiana, Bilaspur and also mate payment of saiary from 24/3/90 with interest @18% per annum. 2. Facts necessary for decision of the present case are that the petitioner was initiaiiy appointed as Ward Aaya and posted at Primary Health Centre, Saragaon. Thereafter, she was transferred to Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur vide order dated 4/9/86. According to the petitioner. she proceeded on casual ieave w.e.f. 17/03/80 upto 21/03/SO and upon return, she was not aliowed to join at Shahari Dawakhana, Bilaspur and so the petitioner preferred a representation on 2213190. ifis submitted that joining was submitted vide Joining report dated 21/3/92 (Annexure A-1). As the petitloner was not aliowed to join inspte of repeated requests, a notice under Section 8Q. CPC was issued on 15/09/90 (Annexure A-4). On T3/07%2 (Annexure A-5), Bie Chief Meuicai Officer directed .ijy:';—i-,,^'l>?'.s •;s s ^ '^ the petitioner to resume her duties at Shahan Dawakhana, Biiaspur. in pursuance ofthe saiu order, though petitioner reported for duty on 17/09/92, she was not aliowed to join. Later on, the Chief Medicai and Health Officer again issued an order on 23/10/92 (Annexure A-8) treating the petitioner as on duty from the date of joining but again she was not ailowed to juin. Finaliy on 16/12/92, petitioner received a ietterdated 11/12/92 (AnnexureA-11) ofme Chtef iViedicai and Health OfHcer by which eariier order dated 23/10/92 was canceiled and the petitioner was directed to report in his offlce. Thereafter, even though petitioner reported to the Chief Medicai and Heaith Officer in his office, no posting was given nor was she aiiowed to join at her place of posting at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur. Submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was duiy posted and working at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur and ever since, she reported back after avaiiing casuai ieave, she was not allowed to join and work nor has she been p-aid s-aiary since then, tiii date. Submission of learned counsei for the petitioner is that the petitioner, having been posted at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur was entitied to work their but she was illegaliy deprived off her job and aiso not paid saiary to which she is entitied. Learned counsei for the petitioner nexi urged that impugned order dated 11/12/92 (Annexure A-11) is iliegai as the eariier order dated 23/10/92 (Annexure A-8) was rightly issued by which in-charge Assistant Surgeon, Shahari Dawakhana was uirected to treat the petitioner as on duty from the date pf assumption of chargs. 3. Per contra, submission of iearned cbunsei for respondents is that the pefitioner has misied this Court by suppressing that because of dispute with the then Medical Officer, Dr. Bhabha, petitioner was directed to report in the city hospitai, Biiaspur but the petitioner did not obey and continuousty absented hereeif from duties. On 14/05/1930, Officer in-charge, City h'ospitai (Shahari Dawakhana) reported that petitioner is absent from her duties. Vide ietter dated 14/05/90, it was aiso informed that the petitioner was reiieved for her assignment to District Hospitai but the peUtioner remained unauthorisediy absent frorn her duties and without reporting to the Chief Medical an<fi-ieaith Offlcer pureuant to order dated 11/12/92, kept on insisting, without any right, for her joining at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur where there 'was no vacancy, as some other Vrfard Aaya has been posted. It is submitted that petitioner was never inciined to work at District Hospital and she avoided working there. Petitioner had vested interest in continuingservice at Shahari Dawakhana, Bilaspur and therefore she never worked at District Hospital except demanding to join at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur. It is argued by learned counsei for respondents that petitioner being a Government Servant was obliged to obey the ordere of posUng issued by the Chief Medicai and hleatth OfRcer on 20/03/90 by which the petitioner was attached at District Hospitai, Biiaspur. Petitioner fiagrantiy vioiated the ordere and jnstrucfions and aiso misguided and misied the Chief Medicai and t-iealth Officer on account ofwhich an order was finaily issued on 23/10/92 which was later on canceiied vide order dated 11/12/92 (Annexure A-11). 4. i have heard learned counsei for the parties anc! perused the records. 5. The entire basis of petitioner's claim is founded on the assertion that the petitioner wasjiosted at Shahari Dawakhana, Bilaspur and therefore she was entitied to work there. In order to support her case, petitioner relies upon her original posting order dated 4/9/86 (Annexure A-3) by which she was posted at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur. However, inthe entire petition, petitioner has 4 rnade no reference nor rnentioned regarding memo dated 14/05/90 (Annexure R- 1) and memo dated 14/05/90 (Annexure R-2). A peru-sal ofthese two documente shows that petitioner, vide omer dated 20/03/90 (reference of which finds piace in merno dated 14/05/90, Annexure R-1) was attached in District Hospital, Biiaspur. in the return, respondents have come offl with a ciear case that petitioner, on account of some dispute with Dr. Bhabha, In-charge OfRcer of Shahari Dawakhana, was attached in District Hospital, Biiaspur. However, the petitioner never reported at District Hospitai but insisted for her joining at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur. Petitioner has not fited any rejoinder to controvertthose pieadings and documents. Though in the petition, petitioner submits that after canceliation of order dated 23/10/92 by impugned order dated 11/12/92 (Annexure A-11), petitioner reported for duty, she was not allowed to join. Respondents in their return have refuted these aiiegations and have specificaily pieaded ttiat thoughpetitioner was required to report to the Chief Medlcai and Health Oiflcer vide impugned order dated 11/12/92, but the petiUoner did not report for duty. This, therefore, is a disputed question of fact. However, frorn the representation made by the petitioner and from the pieadings made in the petition, it is ciearthat petitioner always insisted that she shouid be aiiowed to work at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur. No rejoinder has been filsd by the petitioner to controvert the aiiegations of respondents that the order dated 23/10/92 (Annexure A-8) was an outcome of misleading act of the petitioner and as soon as true facts were brought to the notice of the authority, the said order was canceiied vide impugned order dated 11/12/92 (Annexure A-1 1). Petitioner has- not chalienged the order dated 20/03/90 of Chlef Medicai and Heaith Ofncer (reference of which finds piace in memo dated 14/05/90, Annexure R-1). It is not a case that no such order was ever issued or served upon the patitioner. s»!sa^v -» <8) ~<fc f^ s %^.. ^ •^s^.'^-.'^ ; •^..•K.-.^ } There is no reason for this Court to disbeiieve what has been stated tn the afRdavit by the respondents that though vide order dated 22/03/90, petitioner was attached in District Hospitai, she did not report for her duiy, at District Hospitai. 6. Frorn the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the petitioner djd not obey the order of higher authorities. it is disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner ever reported for duty in District Hospital pursuant to impugned order dated 11/12/92. In the absence of petitioner's posting continued at Shahari Dawakhana, Bilaspur, petitioner is not entitied to work at Shahari Dawakhana, Biiaspur. Further, as the petitioner has faiied to estabiish that she reported for duty at District Hospitai, she is also not enUtled to any direction for payment of saiary. Respondent No.2, the Chief Medicai and Heaith Officer, shaii, however, hoid an inquiry, after giving the petitioner an opportunity, to find out as to wtiether petitioner reported at District Hospitai pursuant to her order of attachment dated 20/03/90 or reported to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Biiaspur in compiiance of impugned order dated 11/12/92. If in the said inquiry, it is found that petitioner had joined her duty at District Hospital, she would be entitied for her salary from the date of such joining. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. ^ ' Sd/- \ Manindra Mohan Shrivastavali Judge fc