A contractual pharmacist sought salary from 2012 to 2014, which respondents denied after terminating his services in 2012. The court held that since services were actually rendered until 2014, payment is mandatory.
Respondents directed to pay due salary from 16.08.2012 to 30.04.2014 within four months, with 6% annual interest if delayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4665/2016
Ashok Godara S/o Shri Mohan Lal ji, aged 29 years, R/o Bishnoiyan Ki Dhani, Village Banar, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
| ----Respondents | |
|---|---|
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Anmol Saluja, for Mr. R.S. Saluja |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. SKM Vyas, GC Ms. Anamika Bishnoi, GC Ms. Vandana Bhansali,GC |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
14/09/2022
By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:(I) That, the decision of the Committee dated 21.12.2015 (Annex.13) and the communication dated 22.12.2015 may kindly be directed to be treated illegal. (II) That consequent to aforesaid, it may kindly be directed that petitioner is entitled to salary of the post of
(2 of 5) [CW-4665/2016]
contractual pharmacist from 16.08.2012 till 30.04.2014. (III) That the petitioners may also kindly be granted relief in consonance with the facts stated and the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. (IV)Writ petition filed by the petitioners may also kindly be allowed with costs”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Sun City Service and Pharmacist Welfare Society as per the requirement of manpower submitted by Jodhpur Sahkari Upbhoghkta Wholsesale Bhandar Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bhandar’) provided petitioner’s services as contractual pharmacist to it. The Bhandar vide order dated 30.09.2011, thereafter posted the petitioner at Counter No.18 at MDMH, Banar. The petitioner in pursuance of aforesaid order discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and dedication. The salary of the petitioner had been discontinued from 16.08.2012 however, his services as contractual pharamicist were utilised at Banar. Whereupon, the petitioner requested for payment of due salary. The Bhandar acting on the request of the petitioner, vide letter dated 27.12.2012, requested the Superintendent, MDM Hospital, Jodhpur to disburse the amount of due salary to the petitioner. A reminder regarding the same was issued on 26.06.2013. In the reply to aforesaid letter, the Superintendent, MDM Hospital, Jodhpur stated that the services of contractual pharmacists had already been terminated w.e.f. 13.10.2012 and therefore, the petitioner ought not to have continued in services. The Secretary, Medicare Relief Society, MDM Hospital, Jodhpur inquired into the matter as to why the petitioner continue to discharge duties as contractual pharmacist after termination order dated 13.10.2012. In the reply thereof, Senior Medical Officer cum Incharge CHC, Banar vide letter dated
(3 of 5)
[CW-4665/2016]
06.11.2013 informed that letter terminating services of petitioner was never received by him. While these communications were being exchanged, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated as contractual pharmacist vide order dated 30.04.2014. The petitioner requested for payment of his due salary, consequently, a four member committee was constituted to examine the matter. The Senior Medical Officer cum Incharge CHC, Banar appeared before the committee and reiterated that no order terminating the services of the petitioner was ever received and thus, the petitioner was allowed to continue in services upto 30.04.2014.
The committee in its report dated 21.12.2015 noted that no salary accrued to the petitioner for services rendered after he had been terminated vide order dated 13.10.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that denial of salary to the petitioner deserves to be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that Respondent No.4 entered into an agreement with Respondent No.6 on 11.10.2011 for providing manpower for the smooth functioning of medicine distribution at various medicine centres. Pursuant to aforesaid agreement, services of the petitioner were provided by the Bhandar. However, on 13.10.2012, the services of petitioner along with other contractual pharmacists were terminated. Therefore, no salary is payable to the petitioner.
Learned counsel representing respondent No.6 i.e. Bhandar submitted that the services of the petitioner were provided to respondent No.1 to 5 in pursuance of the agreement dated 11.10.2011 entered into between them. The Senior Medical Officer
(4 of 5)
[CW-4665/2016]
cum Incharge CHC, Banar allowed the petitioner to serve as contractual pharmacist at Medical Centre No.18, Banar even after termination order dated 13.10.2012, therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are liable to pay the due salary of the petitioner.
Heard.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner rendered his services as contractual pharmacist at Medical Centre No.18, CHC, Banar upto 30.04.2014. Senior Medical Officer cum Incharge, CHC, Banar appeared before four member committee constituted by respondent-medical department and in unambiguous terms stated that no order terminating the petitioner’s services was ever received by him. Per contra, he admitted that services of the petitioner as contractual pharmacist were utilised upto 30.04.2014.
In view of admitted facts that the services of the petitioner as contractual pharmacist were utilised upto 30.04.2014, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that respondent Nos.1 to 5 cannot shrink away from their responsibility of making payment of due salary to the petitioner for the period commencing from 16.08.2012 to 30.04.2014. To say the least, the action of the respondents in denying salary to the petitioner is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner has been deprived beneficial use of his money without any fault on his part. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits begar and similar forms of forced labour. Respondent cannot be allowed to deny the rights and benefits to which petitioner is entitled for rendering services with the respondents. The action of the respondents in the present
(5 of 5)
[CW-4665/2016]
case is violative of Article 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to make payment of the salary due against the work discharged by the petitioner from 16.08.2012 till 30.04.2014 at Counter No.18 at MDMH, Banar.
The aforesaid payment shall be made to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of this order. If the respondents fail to make the payment within the stipulated period, the amount due shall carry interest @6% per annum.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
63-Ravi Kh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period he rendered services as a contractual pharmacist despite the termination order.
Is the denial of salary violative of Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution?
Can the State shrink from its liability to pay dues where services were actually rendered?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Godara
The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services Department, Government of Rajasthan
The Additional Director (Administration), Medical and Health Services
The Principal, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur
The Superintendent, M.D.M. Govt. Hospital, Jodhpur
The Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health Centre, Banar, Jodhpur
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
