Disposed

Suresh Kumar Jatolia S/O Prabhudayal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Aug 2023CW/159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench disposed of connected writ petitions challenging termination of contractual medical officers by referring to coordinate bench precedents regarding performance targets and allowing interim protection pending representation.

What did the court decide?

Interim order continues; petitioners to file representation; respondents to decide and pass speaking order; petitioner directed to receive full salary pending.

Suresh Kumar Jatolia S/O Prabhudayal Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 170/2019

¶3

Mahendra Kumar Jatoliya S/o Bansidhar Jatoliya, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Raigar, Resident Of Village Karnipura, Post Kuli,district Sikar- 332710, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Mission Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C -Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Project Director, Rbsk, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 159/2019

¶13

Suresh Kumar Jatolia S/o Prabhudayal, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Raigar, Resident Of Village And Post Roopgarh, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶17

Mission Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C - Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶18

Project Director, Rbsk, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶19

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 160/2019

¶22

Divya Gakhar W/o Abhishek Kawatra, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Punjabi, Resident Of 5/c, 156 Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

[CW-170/2019]

(2 of 6)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Mission Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C - Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶28

Chief Medical And Health Officer, In Front Of Tyagi Vatika, Jailwel Road, Dist. Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶31

: Mr.Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi : Mr.Vivek Dangi, Dy.GC

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 10/08/2023

¶33

The present writ petitions are decided by a common order, as similar controversy has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7408/2018 (Mamta Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 14^th August, 2019 along with other connected writ petitions.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed as Medical Officer (Ayush Chikitsak) in different districts and contractual appointment of the petitioners was continued by the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel submitted that by the impugned action of the respondents, the petitioners were sought to be discontinued only on account of not achieving the targets, as fixed by the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner while deciding to terminate services of the petitioners.

¶37

(3 of 6) [CW-170/2019]

¶38

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents initially had issued an order dated 01^st October, 2018, whereby as many as 34 Doctors were given notice to improve their performance, however, vide order dated 30^th November, 2018, the respondents retained service of 25 Doctors while giving them warning.

¶39

Learned counsel submitted that in a discriminatory manner, services of the petitioners had sought to be terminated and as such, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court.

¶40

Learned counsel submitted that this Court, initially protected rights of the petitioners by passing interim order and direction was given to the respondents to continue the petitioners, as they were continued prior to passing of the impugned order.

¶41

Learned counsel submitted that all the petitioners are continued their duties in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Meena (supra) has decided the similar controversy.

¶43

This Court deems it proper to quote the relevant part of the order dated 14^th August, 2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Meena (supra) for ready reference:

¶44

“After hearing counsel for the parties this Court finds that the petitioner is in continuous employment with the respondents as Ayush Doctor (Homeopathy) and achieved various targets given for National Health Mission. This Court also sees that by virtue of interim order, the petitioner is continued on contractual post.It cannot be permitted by this Court that respondents take two stands of completion of contract by its

¶45

(4 of 6)

¶46

[CW-170/2019]

¶47

employees by permitting persons who have achieved lesser targets than the petitioner to continue whereas to terminate the services of the present petitioner on the same ground. Cause of justice would be appropriately served if while taking into consideration the targets achieved by the other similarly situated colleagues of the petitioner, the petitioner’s contractual appointment is reconsidered by the respondents. Such reconsideration shall be done strictly in accordance with law while giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by taking comprehensive representation on record. There visiting of the order dated 31st march, 2018 shall be done within a period of 60 days from today and until final decision is taken by the respondents by passing a speaking order strictly in accordance with law, the interim order granted by this Court shall remain in currency. It is further directed that in case the respondents choose to retain the petitioners’ for the contractual appointment as Ayush Doctor(Homeopathy), then they will be treated at par with similarly situated persons for computing pay and emoluments.

¶48

The representation will be submitted by the petitioners within a period of 15 days from today.

¶49

With the aforesaid, all these petitions disposed of.”

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Meena (supra) , the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed another order in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8101/2018 (Rohitashwa Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 19^th November, 2020.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have acted in a proper manner, as the petitioners were served with a show cause notice in respect of their performance.

¶52

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no parity can be claimed by the petitioners to treat them at par with the other 25 Doctors, who were retained in service.

¶53

(5 of 6) [CW-170/2019]

¶54

Learned counsel submitted that performance of the petitioners was not up to the mark and as such, the authorities, considering their performance, decided to discontinue their services.

¶55

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and as such, no indefeasible right can be claimed by the petitioners to continue in spite of showing bad performance in the job.

¶56

Learned counsel submitted that this Court in the case of Mamta Meena (supra) and Rohitashwa Kumar Meena (supra) also given liberty to the respondents to pass a speaking order after considering representation of the petitioners therein and as such, no straightway direction may be given by this Court to continue the petitioners.

¶57

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶58

This Court finds that similar controversy has already been settled by this Court in the case of Mamta Meena (supra) and Rohitashwa Kumar Meena (supra) .

¶59

Accordingly, this Court also deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petitions in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Mamta Meena (supra) and Rohitashwa Kumar Meena (supra) .

¶60

Ordered accordingly.

¶61

It goes without saying that right, which is given to the petitioners is by way of filing a proper representation before the respondents and the respondents are required to pass a speaking order in accordance with law and as such, interim order passed by

¶62

(6 of 6) [CW-170/2019]

¶63

this Court in the present petitions will continue till the representation of the petitioners is decided by the respondents.

¶64

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 160/2019 :

¶65

A miscellaneous application has been filed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.160/2019 for seeking direction to give salary to the petitioner.

¶66

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after termination, services of the petitioner were protected by the interim order of this Court, however, during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been paid Rs.16,800/- per month and on the contrary, other similarly situated persons, who were continued after interim order passed by this Court, got increased salary.

¶67

This Court finds that if the petitioner has been continued in service by interim order of this Court, the petitioner is also required to paid full salary, as has been paid to the other similarly situated persons.

¶68

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to look into the matter and also pass an appropriate order of granting full salary to the petitioner, as has been granted to the other similarly situated persons, who were continued in service after interim order of this Court.

¶69

With the aforesaid, the miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

¶70

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶71

Preeti Asopa/204-206

Suresh Kumar Jatolia S/O Prabhudayal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Jatolia S/O Prabhudayal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Puskarna Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vijaybhan Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Nanu Ram Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Vs U O I and Ors.

Divya Gakhar W/O Abhishek Kawatra Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Gupta Vs R S R T C and Anr.