IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15245 of 2009 Ram Naresh Prasad S/O Faten Prasad Singh Vill.- Jitwaria, P.S.- Kalyanpur, Distt.- Samastipur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through The Director-In-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. 3. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Khajeuli, Distt.- Madhubani. ------- Respondents ------- 5 09.12.2011 Having heard Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and counsel for the State as with regard to the correctness of an order dated 29.11.1999, which is in the form of inter departmental communication by the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani to In-charge Medical Officer for restraining him from taking work from the petitioner, this Court must hold that the writ application filed on 11.11.2009, after more than ten years of the cause of action, is wholly belated and in fact fit to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has pointed out that the question of delay was gone into by the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Purendra Sulan 2 Kit reported in 2006(3)PLJR 386 and it was held that the Health Department could consider the cases of effected employees by issuing public notice. In the considered opinion of this Court, neither a Division Bench in the case of Purendra Sulan Kit (supra) had made any such pronouncement that each and every employee of the Health Department, whether working or dismissed or continuing without payment of salary, will be covered by the said order nor any law was laid therein that an employee of Health Department could file his writ application for reinstatement and/or payment of salary even after 10 years of cause of action. The cases, which were heard by the Division Bench and disposed of by the common judgment in the case of Purendra Sulan Kit (supra), were either letters patent appeal or writ applications pertaining the dismissal/termination of services of those effected employees. The order of the learned single Judge reinstating in mass was made subject matter of the letters patent appeal by the State of Bihar and pending writ applications as against the order of 3 termination were clubbed with those letters patent appeal. Therefore, anything said and/or observed in the order of the Division Bench was in relation to such persons of the Health Department whose services were already terminated. The case of the petitioner however is that his service has not yet been terminated and in fact the impugned order assailed by him in this writ application only says that the petitioner’s controlling authority could not take work from the petitioner. Here also the order of appointment as shown is bearing memo no. 2326 dated 31.12.1988 whereas the petitioner’s order of appointment contained in Anenxure-1 is memo no. 205 dated 30.1.1989. The Civil Surgeon in fact in the order dated 29.11.1999 has found the appointment of the petitioner to be itself forged. It is true that there is also nothing on record by way of counter affidavit of the respondents to explain as to what final decision was taken after the said letter no. 1875 dated 29.11.1999 issued and in fact the petitioner’s representation filed 4 for release of his payment of salary and allowing him to work also does not appear to have been disposed of. In that view of the matter, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Surgeon of Madhubani district by filing a fresh representation, whereafter, the Civil Surgeon will look into the nature of appointment of the petitioner and if he finds that in the appointment of the petitioner, the prescribed procedure was not followed and yet no final decision has been taken as with regard to the continuation of the petitioner in service, he would pass his final order in this regard. If, however, the Civil Surgeon would find that the final decision has already been taken in the case of the petitioner, he will only communicate to the petitioner by way of reply of the representation of the petitioner. In the event, the respondents would find that the petitioner’s appointment letter was not forged and if a policy is framed in for rehabilitating such terminated employees of the Health Department, the petitioner’s experience for the actual work done will also 5 be taken into account but, if it is found that the petitioner’s appointment was based on a forged appointment letter, he will not have any such benefit of his past service. A final decision as with regard to the petitioner’s status and continuance must be taken within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)