Disposed

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024/5367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order assigning him ministerial duties and withholding salary. Court disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the impugned order, directing authority to process a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; respondent directed to consider petitioner's fresh representation via strictly reasoned order.

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55509

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5367 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prafulla Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

This Court has passed the order dated 22.07.2024 which reads as under:-

¶7

"1. Heard.

¶8

2. This Court has passed the order dated 16.7.2024 which reads as under:

¶9

"1. Heard Shri O.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents.

¶10

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main relief(s):-

¶11

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order no. Ni. Ho. 55/24/3111 dated 05.07.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition by means of which petitioner has been attached in the office of Director Homeopathy, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

¶12

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Charge Certificate dated 30.06.2024 contained as Annexure No. 2. to the writ petition by means of which Charge of the Post of District Homeopathic Medical Officer Lucknow has been handover to opposite party no. 4. Illegally.

¶13

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue necessary orders for posting of petitioner on the post of District Homeopathic Medical Officer or at least handover the charge of Acting District Homeopathic Medical Officer Lucknow.

¶14

iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release the salary of the month of June of the petitioner continue pay the salary in upcoming months for

¶15

which he is entitled as petitioner is working under the opposite parties as Senior Homeopathic Medical Officer at State Homeopathic Dispensary, Juggaur, Lucknow continuously."

¶16

3. Shri Chauhan prays for and is granted three days' time to seek complete written instructions on the point as to why the petitioner has been assigned ministerial job when he is serving on the post of Senior Medical Officer.

¶17

4. List/put up this case on 22.07.2024 as fresh.

¶18

5. This matter may be taken up immediately after fresh cases."

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶20

4. Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C., on the basis of instructions, has submitted that the petitioner has been assigned the job which is also an important job and besides the petitioner, some more doctors have been assigned the same job.

¶21

5. On being asked learned Additional C.S.C. as to whether the allocation of work has been described anywhere or not, he has requested that he may be given some short time to seek specific instructions and place it on record such guidelines.

¶22

6. Let short counter affidavit be filed within a period of one week. The deponent of such short counter affidavit would be opposite party no.3.

¶23

7. List this case on 31.07.2024 as fresh.

¶24

8. This matter may be taken up immediately after fresh cases. "

¶25

Learned counsel for the Additional C.S.C has submitted that the ministerial job of the department is as important as the job of the doctor discharging the duties as Medical Officer or Senior Medical Officer. He has submitted that by means of the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 it has been indicated that some more doctors and the associate employees have been assigned such jobs. To prepare the counter affidavit and to file paper before the Court is an important job for which besides the ministerial staff, the doctors are assigned the job to look after the aforesaid ministerial job. On the basis of instruction, he has also submitted that some senior doctors to the petitioner have also been assigned the same work.

¶26

However, on being confronted, learned Additional C.S.C as to why the petitioner has been directed to report Dr. Hemchandra as per the aforesaid impugned order, when he is senior to Dr. Hemchandra, learned Additional C.S.C has submitted that the petitioner being a senior to Dr. Hemchandra would not be directed to report any junior doctor but in such work the seniority of the petitioner would be respected. He has

¶27

also submitted that if it is so needed, the petitioner may again be sent for his technical job of the doctor wherein he is having expertise.

¶28

Learned Additional C.S.C has further submitted that since the petitioner was retired at the age of 60 years and after his retirement his post retiral dues are paid but after permitting him to serve upto the age of 62 years he will have to return those retiral dues and as soon as the petitioner returns those retiral dues, he shall be given his regular salary etc.

¶29

Replying to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already preferred a representation to the competent authority to get back the post retiral dues which has been paid to him and he be paid his regular salary as and when the same falls due and after his retirement at the age of 62 years he may be paid his post retiral dues etc.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by this Court in Service Bench No. 9942 of 2018 in re: Dr. Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medial and Health Services (enclosed as Annexure No. R.A.4 to the rejoinder affidavit), whereby the Division Bench of this Court has directed that the administrative work may be important but the appointments of doctors are basically for the patient care not for the administrative work therefore, the petitioner may be directed to discharge the administrative work.

¶31

On the aforesaid arguments, learned Additional C.S.C has submitted that the competent authority are conscious about that order and by means of the impugned order the petitioner may not be directed to discharge such duties permanently till his retirement. As the aforesaid arrangement may be for limited period or for the time being but this all may be done as per the administrative exigency and requirement of service of particular employee in respect of sections/department.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner being a senior doctor to so many doctors therefore he should be posted as District Homeopathic Officer at the district not in office to do the ministerial work. He has also submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdictional order.

¶33

Be that as it may, since this is a discretion of the disciplinary authority to assign appropriate work to its employees and while assigning the appropriate work/job the seniority of the person would be taken into account and if

¶34

keeping in a view the seniority of the petitioner he should be posted as District Homeopathic Officer, this fact may very well be examined by the competent authority. To be more precise, as to where the petitioner should be posted is a domain of the competent authority not the Court but at the same time it is legitimately expected that no person should be assigned any job/task which is below to his position/seniority.

¶35

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage, even without interfering the impugned order dated 05.07.2024, giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party no.2 i.e., Director Homeopathic, 8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him enclosing therewith copies of relevant documents and his earlier representations which are necessary for disposal of the representation, within a period of 10 days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within aforesaid period, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if it is so required, with expedition preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶36

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶37

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Preeti.

¶38

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Deptt. U.P. Govt.Lko. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development U.P. Lko and 5 Others

Om Prakash Narayan Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 5 Others

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P., Deptt. of Home, Lko. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. and 4 Others

Ram Pyar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others