Dismissed

Sanjit Kumar Srivastava v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2018WRIA/10414/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition for honorarium. It held that since the petitioner failed to challenge the specific order disengaging him, no direction for future payment can be issued, noting payments were made only under court pressure. However, authorities are free to examine past work for payment.

What did the court decide?

No direction to pay honorarium is granted; the petitioner must challenge the disengagement order to claim future payments, but past service may be examined for payment.

Sanjit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10414 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjit Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay honorarium at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per month to the petitioner from April, 2017 onwards till date.

¶6

It appears that petitioner was engaged on honorarium basis on the post of Pharmacist at Primary Health Centre in Ballia. An appointment order is on record of the writ petition as Annexure1. The appointment order mentions that petitioner would be allowed to continue till 31.3.2015. Petitioner has brought on record an order passed in his Writ Petition No.26625 of 2016, decided on 31.5.2016, which reads as under:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

¶9

Sanjit Kumar Srivastava is before this Court for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Ballia to release payment of the honorarium to the petitioner for period 01.03.2015 to 30.04.2016 fixed/granted at the rate of Rs. 13,500/- per month in lieu of his services rendered during this period on the post of "Pharmacist" at Primary Health Centre, Kotwa District Ballia.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes statement at bar that after filing of the present writ petition, the honorarium for the month of March 2015 to December 2015 have been paid to the petitioner but the grievance of the petitioner is that the honorarium for the remaining period i.e. from January 2016 to April, 2016 have not been paid to the petitioner and as such direction may be issued to the respondent No. 3 to release the remaining amount in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

Consequently, in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Ballia to release the remaining amount in favour of the petitioner preferably within next six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

¶12

The petitioner thereafter has filed yet another Writ Petition No.5367 of 2017 in which following orders were passed on 6.2.2017:-

¶13

"Heard Sri Anupam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.S. Bundela, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner is claiming payment of his honorarium of Rs.13,500/- for the month of April, 2016 till date. In respect of his claim the petitioner is stated to have preferred a representation before the respondents.

¶15

No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶16

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with the direction that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no.3, Chief Medical Officer, Ballia raising all his grievances as raised in the present writ petition within a period of 15 days from today alongwith the certified copy of this order, the respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of three months.

¶17

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits."

¶18

A Contempt Petition No.2787 of 2017 has also been filed by the petitioner, in which following orders were passed on 11.7.2017:-

¶19

"The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party who was required to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of service of certified copy of the order, has not taken any decision on the matter, as directed by the Writ Court in Writ A No. 5367 of 2017, even though the said order was served on 14.2.2017. It has been submitted that the opposite party has wilfully disobeyed the order dated 6.2.2017 passed in Writ A No. 5367 of 2017.

¶20

Let notice be issued to the opposite party returnable by 4.9.2017. If by the next date, the opposite party complies with the order dated 6.2.2017 passed in Writ A No. 5367 of 2017, he need not appear in person and a compliance affidavit would suffice."

¶21

Grievance of the petitioner is that every time petitioner has to approach this Court by filing writ petition and only thereafter the honorarium amount is being released by the respondents to the petitioner. Noticing such facts, this Court proceeded to pass following orders on 4.7.2018 and thereafter on 11.7.2018:-

¶22

"4.7.2018

¶23

Despite an order passed on 24th April, 2018 as well as subsequent adjournments, learned Standing Counsel has not been able to obtain instructions so far. It otherwise appears from the record that in respect of grievance relating to withheld amount of honorarium, this virtually is the fourth petition filed before this Court. It appears that the authorities, as a matter of routine, sit tight over the matter and wait for a direction from the Court even to release the amount, which is due and payable. This tendency cannot be encouraged. The respondents have otherwise not shown even the minimum courtesy of extending instructions to the learned Standing Counsel, despite information sent.

¶24

Principal Secretary of the Department of Medical and Health, U.P., Lucknow, therefore, is requested to depute a responsible officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, to remain personally present before the Court alongwith records, and also explain as to why instructions have not been furnished to the learned Standing Counsel, despite repeated information sent, and how the State proposes to fix responsibility of the officials in that regard.

¶25

Post as fresh, once again, on 11.7.2018.

¶26

11.7.2018

¶27

Pursuant to the orders passed on previous occasions, Chief Medical Officer, Ballia, is present before the Court. Sri P. Lal, Joint Secretary of the Department is also present. There is, however, no explanation as to why despite repeated orders passed and intimation sent, the Chief Medical Officer, Ballia had not responded earlier to the directions issued. Even when specific questions are posed, the authorities are not clear about the facts of the case. It is only stated that petitioner is not working after on 1.4.2017.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed photocopy of the Attendance Register, which shows that petitioner has continuously been working uptil 18th June, 2018.

¶29

In the facts and circumstances, Chief Medical Officer, Ballia, is directed to file a counter affidavit, specifically replying the various averments made in the writ petition, including averments made in para 14 of the writ petition. On the next date of hearing, original records shall also be produced with regard to working of persons both at Kotwa and Muralichappra. The Chief Medical Officer shall also explain as to why he had not earlier responded to the letters of the Standing Counsel sent pursuant to orders of the Court. The required counter affidavit shall be served upon the petitioner by 19th July, 2018. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the next date fixed.

¶30

Put up in the additional cause list on 23rd July, 2018. The Chief Medical Officer, Ballia, shall remain personally present before the court, alongwith records. Personal appearance of Joint Secretary of the Department is dispensed with."

¶31

Pursuant to the orders passed earlier, the Chief Medical Officer, Ballia is present before the Court alongwith records.

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit to contend that initial engagement of petitioner has already been discontinued by a specific order passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Ballia on 13/16.5.2016. This order mentions that for various reasons the engagement of petitioner is not warranted, and therefore, his contractual engagement on honorarium basis is discontinued.

¶33

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed stating that the order dated 13/16.5.2016 has not been served upon the petitioner.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record. Learned Standing Counsel has also produced the records.

¶35

The only letter of appointment issued to the petitioner on record is Annexure-1 to the writ petitioner, as per which, his engagement was till the end of financial year 2015. There is no specific order extending the engagement of petitioner after 31.3.2015. The engagement of petitioner has otherwise been discontinued under specific order passed on 13/16.5.2018. Even if petitioner's contention that such an order has not been served upon him is taken to be correct, yet, it would transpire that the order has otherwise been served upon the petitioner by way of counter affidavit. Although a rejoinder affidavit has been filed,

¶36

but the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order discontinuing his engagement. The argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel that it is under threat of the order of this Court passed in writ petitions as well as contempt petition that petitioner has managed to continue despite a specific order discontinuing his engagement appears to have substance.

¶37

In view of the fact that the order discontinuing the engagement of petitioner has neither been challenged nor initial engagement has been extended, no direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner to continue and release his honorarium. The mere fact that authorities have issued directions for release of honorarium to petitioner, despite an order of disengagement existing in his favour, would clearly go to show that authorities were releasing honorarium to petitioner only by showing respect to the orders of this Court and it would not mean that the engagement of petitioner would stand renewed or extended so as to entitle him to receive honorarium.

¶38

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition will not prevent the authorities from examining as to whether petitioner has actually worked in the past, and for such period the petitioner shall be paid the amount of honorarium.

¶39

Personal appearance of the officer concerned stands dispensed with.

¶40

Order Date :- 23.7.2018 Ashok Kr.

Sanjit Kumar Srivastava v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Kumar Srivastava v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baljeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suryakant Verma Vs Union of India

Dipu Kumar Ray Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Kamal Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others