z CWéQWI IN THE HIGH COURT OF CEIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR¢ W.P. NO. é0. 2003. Di". Suresh Jain s/o Shri Devidas ‘Jain, aged about 53 years, senior Medical Officer, District Hospital Ambikapur, Distt. mrguja, C.G. PETITIONER VERSUS. The state o£ Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Raipur, C. G. 2. Director, Health Services, Chhattis- garh, Raipur. 3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ambikapur, Distt. wrguja, C.G. 4. Union o£ India, through the Secretary of the Ministry of Personal Public Grievances 6c Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, Lok Nayak Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003. K/ ,w 275w m3 CONsTITUTmN OF y!” W‘T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 ‘Lj‘r RI 2 IA. @7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.No.5 16/2003 Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Other: Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and Others W.P.No. 174]2003 Dr. KC. Meshram Vs. State of Chhattisaarh and Others w.P.No.6o4/2ooa Dr. Suresh Jain Vs. State of Chhattiswh end Others W.P.No.877/2003 Dr. Bhojraj Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgaxh and Others W.P.No.878l2003 Dr. Smt. Sunita Sharma Vs. r state of Chhattisgnrh and Others ORDER Post for \7 . 12.2003 Sdl- Fakhruddin x Judge l " ii i i / " " W 17, x W w. v!“A A HIGH COURT OFJCHHATTIsGARI-I AT BH‘ASPUR W.P.No.516/2003 Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Otlmrs Va. state of Chhattisgarh and Others ORDER Per Fnkhruddin, J : The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposa’iuof Writ Petitions No. 174/2003 (Dr. Kc. Mesnmm vs. State of CG. and Others), No.6o4/2003 (Dr. Smash Jain vs. State of C.G. and Others), No.877/2003 (Dr. Bhojraj Sharma vs. State of C‘G. and Others) and No.878/2oo3 (Dr. Smt. Summ Sharma vs. State of C.G. and Others). 2. The petiuoners are doctors. They are serving in tin State . of Chhattisgarh. It is not in dispute that they have been tinally allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. They wem directed to be relieved and were also directed to report to their respective places of posting. However, their relieving has been stayed’and they have not been relieved so far. 3‘ The farts in brief of the cases are that the petitioners of W.P. No. 516/2003 are posted in Sarguja District. They have been allocated and transferred to Katni, Sidhi, Shadol, Datia and Shadol respectively vide order dated l9. 10.2002 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. ‘2. Their names are at Serial N9. 94, 103, 108, 109 and 59. Vida Order dated 26.10.2002 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 5, a direction was issued that they should be relieved and report to their respective places of posting. However, as per orders dated 28.10.2002 (Armexure P/ 1) passed by respondent No. 4 and dated 29.10.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. ‘5, their relieving has been stayed. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders Annexures P/ 1 and P/2. The petitioner of W.P. No. 174/2003 is posted at Jagdalpur. He has been allocated and transferred to Chindwara vide order dated 22.10.2002 (Anncxurc P/2) passed by respondent No. 2. His name is at Serial No. 7. Vide order dated 31. 10.2002 (Annexure P/ 5) passed by respondent No. 1, a direction was issued that he should be relieved and report to his respediv’e plaee of posting. However, he has not been relieved so far. He prays that resPondent No. 1 be directed to relieve him. The petitioner of W.P. No. 604/2003 is posted at Sarguja. lie has been allocated and transferred to Katni vide order dated 19.10.2002 (Annexure P/4). His name is at Serial No. 16. Vide order dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure P/S) passed by respondent No. 3, a direction was issued that he should be relieved and report to his we ” respective place of postingu However, vide order dated 28.10.2002 (Armcxurc P/7) passcd by respondent No. 2, his lelieving has been stayed. He prays fur quashing the order Annexure P/7. The petitioner of W.P. No. 877/2003 is posted at Sarguja. He has been allocated and transferred to Panna and relieved vide order dated 26. 10.2002 (Annexure P/6) passed by resfmndent No. 4 with a direCtion to report to his respective place of posting before 31. 10.2002. However, vide order dated 28.10.2002 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent No. 3 and dated 29. 10.2002 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent No. 4, his relieving has been stayed. He prays for qnashing the orders Annexures P/8 and P/9. The petitioner of W.P. No. 878/2003 is posted at Sarguja. She has been allocated and transferred to Rajgarh and relieved vide order dated 26.10.2002 (Annexure P/ 5) passed by respondent No. 4 with a direction to report to her place of posting before 31.10.2002. However, vide order dated 28.10.2002 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No. 3 and dated 29. 10.2002 (Annexme P/S) passed by respondent No. 4, her relieving has been stayed. She prays for quashlng the orders Annexures P/7 and P/8. 4. These matters came up for hearing on several dates. ' On 22.07.2003, the Advocate Generals of the States of Madhya Pradesh and 'Chhattisgarh appeared and Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, submitted that 254 posts of Assistant Surgeons arc lying vacant. He further submitted that 229 Assistant Surgeons, whov have been posted in Chhatisgarh, have been allocated to Madhya Pradesh and 131 Assistant Surgeons and 33 Specialists, in total 164, posted in Madhya Pradesh have been allocated to Chhattiegarh-. It was submitted that if the State of Chhattisgarh relieves all 22 Assistant Surgeons to State of Madhya Pradesh, the vacancy of posts will be 483, as 254 posts are already lying vacant. lt was further submitted that if all the officers are relieved, the health services in the State of Chhattisgarh will collapse. It was also submitted that in order to Curb the shortage of government doctors, vthc State of Chhattisgarh had appointed doctors on contract basis for a period of one year. Out of 392 doctors recruited, 76 have not joined their duties. He also submitted that in the meantime the government is taking active steps to fill up the shortage by way of fresh appointments. It was also submitted that the representations of the petitioners have been considered; However, it has been decided not to relieve them in the larger public interest until their relievers come from Madhya Pradesh. It was also submitted that it would he desirable that the Secretaries of both the States may meet and resolve. Shri. Vivek Tankha, Advocate General fon the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that so far as the State of Madhya Pradcsh is Lmlcerncd, it has its own shortage. He however submitwd that the Secretaries of both the States may meat and resolve. Both the Advocate Generals stated that they are trying to sort out the matter. It is submitted that certain meetings have been held but the matter could not be sorted out. The persons have been allocated. They ought to have been made available. It was stated that there was shortage of government doctors and the elections were going on, therefore, they could not be relieved. Now the elections are over, so they have to be relieved. The Central Government vide its letter dated 27.09.2002 also issued instructions in exorcise of powers conferred under Section 68(3) of the M.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 and desired that last (late for relieving the State service personnel to the State of Chhattisgarh is extended upto 31. 10.2002. lnspite of this fact, the petitioners have not been relieved so far, though several opportunities have been wted to the State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State authorities have no jurisdiction to‘stay the transfer of the petitioners from State of Chhattisgar to State of M.P;, as the decision has been taken by the Union of India under the provisions of Section 68(2) of the M.P. Reorganizaion Act, 2000. \s The State authorities cannot override or interfere in the order passed by the Union of India. 6. Section 68(2) of the M.P. Reorganizatiun Act, 2000 is. relevant and is quoted below: “68. Provisions relating to services in Madhva Pradesh and Chhattisgarh - (1) x x x x (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Oentml Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which evely person referred to in sub‘ section (1) shall be finally allotted for service ‘ and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take en'ect or be deemed to have taken ehect.” 7. The respondents / State of Chhattisgarh have filed their return. It is submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh has decided to relieve the doctors allocated to the State of M.P. and posted in tribal areas of Chhattisgarh as soon as their relievers come from M.P. It is further submitted that the action of the State Govemment is humane and in the larger public interest. 8. In view of the legal position, the action of the State authorities in not relieving the petitioners cannot be sustained nd the petitioners are entitled for relieving. A perusal of the return goes to show that neither the order passed by the Union of India nor the date of relieving is challenged by iany government including the State of Chhattisgarh. Since the petitioners have been allocated and suilicient time has elapsed, : ?k a @ no justifiable ground has heen made out to refuse the prayer of relieving of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with costs. It is dircctcd that thc pctitioncrs bc rclicvcd forthwith. 10. Copy of this order be placed in the file of connected writ petitions. Counsel fee as per scale. ,r \§\ Sdl- Fakhruddin i *7 ' («Judge ‘7 (\ilz2oo3 V 1 \‘Z’ Hande/-