Dismissed

Gyan Jyoti Gramouthan Samiti Through Its Secretary Jitendra Kumar Pandey and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC12 Apr 2019CWJC/1423/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking to challenge the reinstatement of a contractual employee alleged to have committed interpolation submitted a writ. The court dismissed the plea, holding petitioners lacked locus standi as the matter lies between the employer and the employee, pending consideration of pending criminal and writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed on the ground that petitioners lack locus standi to challenge the reinstatement of the employee.

Gyan Jyoti Gramouthan Samiti Through Its Secretary… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1423 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Gyan Jyoti Gramouthan Samiti Through Its Secretary Jitendra Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Anurudh Pandey, having its Office at Vill. and P.o.Chorwan, P.s.-Baniapur, Distt.-Saran residing at Salempur, Lah Bazar, P.s.-Chapra Twon, Distt.-Saran. Aged about 48 years, Male.

¶4

Jankalyan Samiti through its representative Ranjit Sah, son of Sita Ram Sah Resident of Vill.-Gangoi, P.o.-Parsa, P.s.-Bheldi, Distt.-Saran. Aged about 48 Years, male.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary-cum-Chief Executive Officer, State Health Society, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The State Health Society through its Secretary-cum-Executive Director Pariwar Kalyan Bhawan, Sheikhpura, Patna.

¶10

The Commissioner Saran Division, Chapra.

¶11

The District Magistrate Saran-cum-Chairman District Health Society, Saran at Chapra.

¶12

The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer-cum-Secretary, District Health Society, Saran at Chapra.

¶13

The District Programme Manager, Health Society, Saran at Chapra.

¶14

Dhiraj Kumar S/o Lalan Prasad Srivastav, Nai Basti, Malviya Nagar, P.s.Mahadeva, Distt.-Saran, aged about 42 years.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gyan Prakash, Adv. For the State Health Society: Mr.K.K.Sinha, Adv. (For Respondent No.2&3) For the State : Mr.Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC 12. For the Respondent No.8 : Mr. Abhya Kumar, Adv. Mr. R.C.Singh, Adv.

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶19

7 12-04-2019

¶20

In view of the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by this Court, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health who is the ExOfficio-Chief Executive Officer of the State Health Society has

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1423 of 2019(7) dt.12-04-2019 2/6

¶22

passed a fresh order vide Memo No.8203 dated 26.02.2019. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the order reads as under:-

¶23

“5mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh /khjt dqekj ds iqujh{k.k vH;kosnu ds fopkj.k ds le; mDr LPA la[;k & 893@2018 esa fnukad 19-09-2018 ds vkns”k }kjk C.W.J.C la[;k 6129@2018 esa ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 21-06-2018 dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh tkudkjh miyC/k vfHkys[k esa ugha Fkk ftlds dkj.k bldk laKku ysrs gq, v/kksgLrk{kjh ds mDr vkns”k Kkikad&6675 fnukad 28-12-2018 esa myys[k fd;k x;kA tcfd rF;ksa ds fo”ys’k.k rFkk xq.k nks’k ds fopkj.k esa ik;k x;k fd vk;qDr lkj.k ize.My ds vkns”k esa ftyk dk;ZØe izca/kd ij rFkkdfFkr NsM+NkM+ dk tks vkjksi gS] mlds fy, ftyk dk;ZØe izca/kd dks nks’kh ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd la”kksf/kr dk;kZns”k ds ml ist ij ftyk dk;ZØe izca/kd ,oa ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk

¶24

Initial fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlh la”kksf/kr dk;kZns”k ij flfoy ltZu&lg&lnL; lfpo }kjk ,djkjukek fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds C.W.J.C la[;k 5171@2017 esa fnukad 16-052017] ds vkns”k] ftlds vk/kkj ij vk;qDr lkj.k ize.My }kjk vkns”k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS vFkok C.W.J.C la[;k 6129@2018 esa fnukad 21-06-2018 ds ikfjr vkns”k vFkok LPA la[;k 893@2018 fnukad 19-09-2018 esa ikfjr vkns”k esa ftyk dk;ZØe izca/kd dks in ls gVkus dk vkns”k ugha fn;k x;k gSA

¶25

6- bl izdkj ¼lafonkeqDr½ ftyk dk;ZØe izca/kd ds iqujh{k.k vH;kosnu ds fopkj.k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk C.W.J.C la[;k 6129@2018 esa fnukad 21-062018 ds vkns”k ds myys[k ds fcuk Hkh rF;ksa ds xq.k nks’k ds vkyksd esa ftyk dk;ZØe izca/kd nks’kh ugha ik;s tkrs gSA rFkkfi LPA la[;k 893@2018 fnukad 19-09-2018 esa ikfjr vkns”k ds vkyksd esa lacaf/kr ekeyk ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fopkjk/khu gSA QyLo:i v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk ikfjr mDr vkns”k Kkikad&6675 fnukad 28-12-2018 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk C.W.J.C la[;k 6129@2018 ,oa C.W.J.C la[;k 1423@2019 esa ikfjr vafre vkns”k ds QykQy ls vPNkfnr ekuk tk;sxkA”

¶26

Petitioners in the present case has sought to challenge

¶27

the order as contained in Memo No.8203 dated 26.02.2019. The

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.1423 of 2019(7) dt.12-04-2019 3/6

¶29

Interlocutory Application was allowed and the writ application has been amended accordingly.

¶30

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners happen to be the tenderers for a work with the District Health Society, Saran. A Technical Evaluation Committee evaluated all the bids and finally an order was issued for selection of six bidders but in one of the columns of the order dated 08.11.2016 as contained in Annexure ‘19’ to the writ application, the name of the petitioner no.2, ‘Jankalyan Samiti’ was also shown along with ‘Croxy Security’ in column no.4. Later on, the order dated 08.11.2016 was amended and an amended order as contained in Letter No.1452 of 2016 dated 08.11.2016 was issued in which the name of the petitioner no.2 was cut down by pen leaving only name of the ‘Croxy Security’ in column no.4 of the amended order. The respondent no.8 who happen to be the District Programme Officer deputed with the District Health Society, Saran put his signature at the place where the name of the petitioner was cut down. This has created an issue as the petitioner has alleged that respondent no.8 had committed an act of interpolation and thereby he is liable to be proceeded against.

¶31

The facts also reveal that respondent no.8 who happen to be a contractual employee was removed from service. He challenged the order of his removal before the appellate authority

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.1423 of 2019(7) dt.12-04-2019 4/6

¶33

which failed but ultimately in revision the respondent no.8 got relief as the Principal Secretary being the revisional authority allowed the revision application of the petitioner vide Annexure ‘16’ to the writ application.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Principal Secretary of the Department while passing the revisional order has failed to appreciate that the order passed in CWJC No.6129 of 2018 by which the order of the Commissioner dated 01.09.2017 and 12.06.2018 were quashed, was itself set-aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide Annexure ‘5’ to the writ application, in L.P.A. No.893 of 2018.

¶35

It is because of the said statement that this Court had called upon the Principal Secretary of the Department to revisit his order which he has done and the revised order dated 26.02.2019 has been passed. A copy of the said order was brought on record as Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. ‘2’ and ‘3’ which has been challenged by the petitioners.

¶36

In course of hearing, while learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that it is this respondent no.8 who is guilty of an act of commission of interpolation in the office order and as such the revisional authority i.e., the Principal Secretary could not have passed the order of his reinstatement in service, learned counsel for the respondent authorities as well as

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.1423 of 2019(7) dt.12-04-2019 5/6

¶38

private respondent no.8 have opposed the prayer of the petitioners on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioners have no locus standi to enter into the domain of the employer in retaining the service of respondent no.8 by passing a reasoned order. The writ application has been opposed by submitting that this Court is not hearing a ‘Public Interest Litigation’ in which the issues as have been sought to be raised in the present writ application perhaps could have been agitated. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have already filed a complaint case for initiation of a criminal proceeding against respondent no.8. Learned counsel for the petitioners confirms this position that a complaint case has been filed in which a non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against respondent no.8.

¶39

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, particularly, the order as contained in Memo No.8203 dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Principal Secretary-cumChief Executive Officer, State Health Society, Bihar, this Court finds that so far as the allegation of committing an act of interpolation in the work order and thereby depriving the petitioner no.2 from the work is concerned, the same is still subject matter of consideration in pending writ application being CWJC No.6129 of 2018 and CWJC No.1423 of 2019. The petitioners have filed a criminal case against respondent no.8 which is also said to be

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.1423 of 2019(7) dt.12-04-2019 6/6

¶41

pending.

¶42

So far as this case is concerned, it is being pursued by the petitioners against the order of the Principal Secretary of the Department by which the respondent no.8 has been reinstated in the service for the reasons recorded in the impugned order.

¶43

In the facts of the present case, the Court is convinced that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the order of reinstatement of respondent no.8 in service. It is a matter between the employer and the employee, the petitioners cannot be allowed to come in between the two to compel the employer to dispense with the service of respondent no.8 on certain allegations which the employer is not ready to accept and has fairly taken a view that his decision will be subject to the two writ applications mentioned in the impugned order.

¶44

The writ application is, thus, devoid of any merit. It is dismissed.

¶45

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶46

R.R.Ojha/- U

Gyan Jyoti Gramouthan Samiti Through Its Secretary Jitendra Kumar Pandey and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Jyoti Gramouthan Samiti Through Its Secretary Jitendra Kumar Pandey and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Chandni Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Irshad Alam Vs The General Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited B P C L and Ors.

Premlata Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajendra Pd. Mishra Vs Shree Arun Yadav and Anr.