C^f^ I^^/o$ BEPORE THE M.P. STATE ADMII^ISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT JABAIiPCTR ORIGINAL APPLICATION MO<r$§^OF 1997. BET11EEN Sant Ram. son of Mani Ram Saha, aged aboat 32 years. War<3 Boy, Primary Health Gentre sonakhan, Block Kasdol.Digtrict RAIPUR(M.P.) APPLICANT A N D State of Hadhya Pra<3esh, throagh secretary, Health Department, Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPAL (M.P.) Joa.nt Director, Health services, satpura Bhawan, BHOPAL (M.P.) 3. Chief Med.i.cal & Health Offlcer, RAIPUR (H.P.) 4. Asslstant surgeon, Primary Health Centre-rSonakhan, Block Kasdol, District RAIPUR (M.P.) . .RESPONDENTS A&PLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985. DETAILS OF APPLICATION ! Partsiculars of the petitloner : As mentloned above in the cause title • • &• » i'^'l'IIIW'S'"'!!''** ^s^ WiJiilNUCB .ks^^is^^1':-..:••'-':.?•-• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J, Writ Petition (S) No. 1585/2005 PETITIONER Sant Rain RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & others. O R D ER 1^1- POST ON t"'-APRIL. 2010 ^ '.^^ ^^^ e)«- >sl» '•l-«s;;,a , .s^ ...>•'?•' ..;"-' -.["•.--..•? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRrVASTAVA.J, PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 1585/2005 Sant Ram Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Qe, others. Apjiearance: Shri Bhaskar Payasi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on I- 04.2010) 1. By this pedtion, the petitioner assails legality and validity of the order dated 9.3.1997 (Annexure A-2), by which petitioner has been posted on the post of Sweeper. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined in the Health Department as Sweeper on 12.1.1985. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred and posted as Ward Boy in the Primary Health Centre, Sonkhan vide order dated 23.1.1996 (Annexure A-l). Pursuant to this order, petitioner joined at Priruary Health Centre, Sonkhan and worked there until impugned order was passed on 9.3.1997, by which 'earlier order of posting as Ward Boy was cancelled in coinpliance of order dated 5.3.1997 passed by the Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur. By this order, the petitioner was required to join back as Sweeper at Primary Health Centre, Bhitidih where he was originally appointed as Sweeper. Aggrieved by the said order of his , (i^ -2- 1!'.-^^ posting as Sweeper, petitioner preferred representation on 30.4.1997 (Annexure A-3). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 9.3.1997 (Annexure A-2) acted to his serious prejudice inasmuch as Ward Boy has an avenue of promotion to the post of Dresser Grade-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 9.3.1997 on the ground that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice, compliance of which was necessary as the inipugned order resulted in penal consequences. It is also submitted that impugned order is cryptic and arbitrary as it does not assign any reason for cancellation of earlier order. It has also been argued that petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination inasmuch as other Sweepers, who were posted as Ward Boy, were allowed to continue. One Smt. Shanta Bai, Sweeper, who was posted as Female Attendant vide order dated 11.1.1995 was not disturbed. 4. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that in view of the retum filed by the respondents in O.A. No. 709/97 (Rajendra Kum.ar Daniel Vs. State of M.P. & others) which has been adopted in the present case, petition is devoid of substance. It is submitted that number of persons including the petitioner, illegally, without authority of law and without availability of vacancy, were posted as Ward Boy, Lower Division Clerk, Surveillance Inspector, Peon and Cholera Worker on different dates. This change ofposting was found to be act of favour, without there being any post. The then Chief Medical 8s Health Officer acting at his sweet will started changing the posting of persons on his choice. On a question raised in the Vidhan Sabha pertaining to functioning of the then Chief Medical & Health Officer, llitt'llBi -3- .. .'3)' . Raipur, an inquiry "was made, in which it was revealed that number of persons including the petitioner were favoured by the then Chief Medical 8s Health Officer. Accordingly, orders were issued in respect of such persons including the petitioner. Joint Director passed an order on 5.3.1997 (Annexure R-l) directing that the change of post ordered in respect of the petitioner and other persons on different dates be immediately cancelled and they be posted back to their original post on which they were initially appointed. Pursuant to that, impugned order dated 9.3.1997 was passed and there is no illegality. It is also submitted that the petidoner has no right to hold the post of Ward Boy as he was appointed on the post of Sweeper only. His change of posting from the post of Sweeper to Ward Boy was illegal, without any procedure and without there being any post. Under these circumstances, petitioner was notentitled to any opportunity of hearing. 5. I have heard leaned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 6. On petitioner's own showing, it is clear that petitioner was appointed on 12.1.1985 as Sweeper. Petitioner has failed to place on record any material to show that while posting him as Ward Boy by order dated 23.1.1996, any process for recruitment was carried out. A perusal oforder dated 23.1.1996 (Annexure A-l) shows that the petitioner was.posted on fhe post of Ward Boy. The order itself recites that petitioner working as Sweeper is posted on the post ofWard Boy. Clearly, therefore, order dated 23.1.1996 was not an order of substandve appointment on the post of Ward Boy. The order is only in nature of transfer and not substantive appointruent on the post of Ward Boy. The order did not show that petitioner was posted on the post of Ward Boy for any specific period. "M-itifc. -4- ^i^ 2- From the return of the respondents, it is clearly borne-out that the petitioner and other persons who were substantively appointed on different post were illegally shifted by the then Chief Medical SE Health officer to other posts which action was found to be illegal after inquiry. 7. As the petitioner did not acquire any right to hold the post of Ward Boy, cancelladon of his posting as Ward Boy does not result in any civil consequence. In these peculiar circumstances ofthe case, no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the petitioner. Petitioner has sought to draw parity with the case of another Sweeper, who was posted as Dresser Grade-II. There are no pleadings as to under what circumstances, the other Sweeper was posted as Female Attendaht. Petitioner has not even placed on record her order of initial appointment. Moreover, from the order dated 5.3.1997 (Annexure R-l) passed by the Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur, it is clear that the name of other Sweeper namely Shanta Bai does not appear. From the entire pleadings of the petitioner including pleading made in the rejoinder, it is clear that petitioner hiraself admits that it was only an administrative exigency which led to his posting as Ward Boy and that the posts of Ward Boy, Peon, Sweeper, Choukidar all belong to Class-IV category carrying same salaiy of Rs.2,900/-. The order in respect of Shanta Bai and Bisheshwar Ram Kannnoje were all in the nature of posting and not any substantive appointraent. As such petitioner's allegation of discrimination is completely misconceived. 8. Consequently, I do no find any merit in this petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 1 Pi£,\?een