sgss ¥- . 2| J- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION <S)NO. 6s L-l- _ 7 OF 2007 PETmONER ,f"fLV?y~ <^- ^••-^" Smt. Shweta Sahu, ^ • Aged - 34 years, ^I/Q of Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu, Pi'esently working as - Auxiliary Nurse Cum Midwife (A. N. M.) At - Sector/ Section - Balouda, (Community Health Center, Balouda) District - Janjgir - Champa (C. G.) /- R/o Village - Jawalpur, Via - Balouda, District - Janjgir - Champa (C. G.) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur. Chief Medical & Health Officer, Janjgir - Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa (C. G.) Writ Petition Uner Article - 226 of ConstitutiQn of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, sutitable direction/directions, order/orders etc. <"-^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS) No. 3584 of2007 ^F-^ PETITIONER Smt. Shweta Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Another. ^ Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on.4/.. .day o'fMay, 2011. Sd/- -,./:, Satish K.Agnihotri , Judge . , •/y^ 'i^. .S ^!es^S^^S•% r IB ; "<»esa3Slf!<<»" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3584 of2007 Smt. Shweta Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AenihotrLJ. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. /<- (Delivered on^...day ofMay, 2011) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant armual grade increment from the date of initial appointment and consequeiitial benefits ofservice, arrears, interest etc. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, relevant for the adjudication ofthe case, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Auxiliary Nurse cum Midwife (for short 'the ANM') on 01.10.1994 (Annexure P/l) by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bilaspur, on the death of her husband namely Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu, who died in hamess. The appointment order provided that the petitioner was required to undergo 18 months training of Multipurpose Health Worker (Female) by an institute, run by the Govemment. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner should be registered with Mahakoshal Nurses Registration Council and should be :^'"'wv::ts^ VsisSX^: 8 ...^^^ J ,-'/ ^ . „<??' ' ^^a.^'" 3. renewed time to time to keep registration valid. According to the averment of the petitioner, the petitioner made an application on 28.03.1999 (Annexure P/2) to forward her name for training ofMultipupose HealtU Worker (Female). The petitioner was relieved on 13.7.2000 (Annexure P/3) for attending the training programme at Multipiirpose Health Worker Training Institute, Raiga'h. Thereafter, it is not clear asto why the petitioner did not attend fhe institute and complete the training programme. The name of the petitioner was agaiu referred on 01.09.2006 (Annexure P/5) for training and for the said puqsose, she was relieved on 06.09.2006 (Annexure P/6). The Chief Medial & Health Officer, Raigarh, infonned to the respondent No. 2 that it was not possible for him to pennit joining ofpetitioner for training as fhe session of training started in January 2006, and most of the training course had been complete. Thus, she may be sent thereafter. It appears that thereafler, the name of the petitioner was sent and the petitioner has completed her training in the year 2010, as averred by the leamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kesharwani, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner claims annual iricrement •w.e.f. initial date of appointment in view ofthe provisions of Fundamental Rules 24. Shri Kesharwani would next contend that it was not a pre-condition in the rs s appointment order that no increment would be permissible before clearing the training programme, as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner cannot be denied annual grade increment on account of the fact that the training could not be completed for one or the other reason. Shri Kesharwani relies on a decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Dongar Singh Pa-war v. State ofM.P. & Others . ' 4. On the other hand, Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the eligibility for appointment on the post of ANM under the Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (Related to the Directorate of Health Services) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules, 1989"}, is that the candidate should have passed Higher Secondary/12 class examination in 10+2 system. Further, the candidate should have passed 18 months training course of Female Health Worker and registration of Female Health Worker with the Council, which is evident from Schedule III under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1989. The petitioner was not in possession ofany of the above qualification, except passing of class 12 examination at the time ofher initial appointment. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to annual grade increment as the 2006(3) MPHT 352 n o petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis without having the requisite qualification, as aforestated. The petitioner is entitled to annual increment from the date the petitioner has completed the training programme, as above and duly registered with Mahakoshal Nurses Registration Council. 5. Having considered the rival contentions ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner was on compassionate basis and the same was not a regular appointment as the petitioner did not have the qualification as prescribed in the statute, i.e. passing of Higher Secondary Examination under 10+2 system, 18 months training course of Female Health Worker and registration withNurses Registration Council. 6. Schedule III underRule 8 ofthe Rules, 1989 reads as under: STg^ft-tft'T ^w s ^Ks^) (1) '^1T Tf •Mf"lRld TT? c^ ^TPT (2) Sfig 'CW (3) wg ^f\ (4) SI^tTTT? (5) 1^u<llllll'l (6) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (Sftj *lRdl WRSZT 18 30 (1) d'cdtl'i W^ipl* ^taT \JCTD"I/ 10+2 'ftRIT q^1?T ^ 12^f ?P8TT (2) ^Kv\[ WR6ZI ct>i4t>nl cpr 18 Iire dir HftsPT, dCTfl"! ^t'H ~^s ^s?"^ //^ \ <-\ ^- 7. The petitioner had no other qualification at the time of appointment except passing of class 12 examination under the 10+2 examination system. In the appointment order itself, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner would have to undergo 18 months training coiirse and thereafier, registration with Mahakoshal Nurses Registration Council which should be renewed time to time and should remain valid throughout the service. 8. The relevant portion of the appointment order dated 01.10.1994 (Annexure P/l) reads as under: ^ Pl^Rvl elg'.i^^lt^ ^KW cM^ctxlI (^ftcTT) ^! Rrf^cT is Tfi? ^T ffRsror HTi<r CPT'TT 3fP)cii4 g>Tn' uft' ?IW'T sfRT 'H'dlRld 1^ft ift Hf^RTtT ^? '? ^W i?cr •g^r sfcsf&s ^ ^fH ff^ g^ ^pr f?[4ir •?TRR gTO <^IT uliq'll uTt ift ^T ?tTTT | I.rfiTSPT rf4<ilrd ^ STCRT ''TPT ISIcRtlol ''T^T '(ful'^^l'l ?f?Rf?f ^ ^ Wt WPT q? ?WPT -lcil-Tl+'i"! cp^ ^Tf I" 9. It is not clear asto why the petitioner did not request immediately afterjoining services for sending her name to the training institute. The petitioner was sent for training on 13.07.2000 (Annexure P/3) at Raigarh, but it could not be completed and the petitioner has not stated asto why she could not complete the training. Thereafter, she was again relieved on 03.08.2006 for attending the training but the same could not be completed because the training programme was almost complete. However, as per the avemient of the leamed ^rfii? (3) ^ Rrll WTOq cPT >;[ut<^|cp>;"l .^?-"-?^"^^ '"*~%'.. ~ .f"l^*Si 'u& .'>' .^ '"'" V1, . ^ ^^J^s-x^ ^ '^. ^ ,Kf J? ^r^'~'_^ "1 •L-^~ counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had completed the 18 months fraining in the year 2010. Thus, the petitioner became entitled to annual increment after she had acquired all the qualifications, as provided under the provisions ofthe Rules, 1989. 10. Reliance ofthe petitioner in Dongar Singh Pawar (supra) wherein it was observed that th6 increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is witUheld. This is also provided in Fundamental Rule 24. The said mle would be applicable only when a candidate/employee has the eligibility qualification for appoiutment. In the case on hand, since the petitioner was not ih possession of the requisite eligibility criteria at the time of appointment, she is not entitled to annual grade increment from the date of appointment, but is entitled to the same w.e.f. the date, she had acquired all the requisite qualification, as stated above. Thus, the case of Dongar Singh Pawar (supra) is not relevant to the facts ofthe case. 11. For the reasons and analysis as aforestated, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 12. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- , Satish KAgnihotri , Judge .^