Skip to content


Bipin Kumar Singh Vs. Personnel and Adminis Reform - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantBipin Kumar Singh
RespondentPersonnel and Adminis Reform
Excerpt:
.....p.s. dhurwa, district-ranchi 3.the principal secretary, department of health, medical education & family welfare, govt. of jharkhand, p.o. & p.s. doranda, district-ranchi 4.the deputy secretary, department of health, medical education & family welfare, govt. of jharkhand, p.o. & p.s. doranda, district-ranchi. …. …. respondents …. coram: hon'ble mr. justice shree chandrashekhar ------ for the petitioner : mr. d.k. prasad,advocate for the state : mr. yogesh modi, jc to a.a.g ----- 2/ 08.11.2016 seeking inclusion of his name in the seniority list of jharkhand secretariat clerical cadre and aggrieved of order contained in memo dated 31.08.2013, 28.01.2014 and 26.02.2015, the petitioner has approached this court.2. briefly stated, the petitioner, who was initially appointed on the post.....
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1574 of 2016 Bipin Kumar Singh, son of late Kameshwar Singh, resident of M-54, Housing Colony, Argora, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi …. …. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajyabhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3.The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 4.The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. …. …. Respondents …. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Prasad,Advocate For the State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, JC to A.A.G ----- 2/ 08.11.2016 Seeking inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Cadre and aggrieved of order contained in Memo dated 31.08.2013, 28.01.2014 and 26.02.2015, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was initially appointed on the post of Typist-cum-Steno by the order of District Indigenous Medical Officer- cum-Deputy Superintendent, Indigenous Medicines, Patna, was posted on deputation vide Memo dated 28.02.1998 under the Directorate of Indigenous Medicine, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Patna. He has pleaded that he was finally adjusted and posted on vacant post of Typist in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicine vide order dated 31.07.1989 and he was confirmed in service on 03.07.1993 on the said post. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was sent to the State of Jharkhand and vide order dated 18.11.2000 he was relieved for joining Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, 2 Government of Jharkhand. When application for Departmental Typing Examination was not accepted, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.742 of 2007 which was allowed vide order dated 07.07.2008 and the department was directed to permit him to appear in the departmental typing examination. The petitioner, appeared in the departmental typing examination, was declared unsuccessful. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2768 of 2012 seeking promotion to the post of “Assistant” in terms of Rule 7(3) of the Jharkhand Secretariat Services Rules, 2010 and for grant of benefits of 1 st and 2nd A.C.P and M.A.C.P besides, arrears of salary. The writ-petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2012 with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner by treating the writ-petition as his representation. In compliance of order passed in W.P.(S) No.2768 of 2012, Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare passed order dated 31.08.2013, whereunder it has been held that the petitioner does not belong to Secretariat Clerical Services Cadre. His claim for grant of A.C.P /M.A.C.P and arrears of pay was rejected. However, in compliance of order passed in Contempt (Civil) Case No.732 of 2013, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare again examined the claim of the petitioner and vide order dated 28.01.2014 confirmed that he belongs to the regional cadre and accordingly, a direction was issued for sending the records to the Director, AYUSH for posting the petitioner in the regional office. It appears that in the meantime, another Principal Secretary took over the charge and he also examined the claim of the petitioner and passed order dated 26.02.2015. By the said order, benefits under M.A.C.P has been granted to the petitioner and the Director, 3 AYUSH has been instructed to examine the claim for payment of 50% amount on account of pay revision under 6 th Pay Revision. A further direction has been issued for recovery of excess amount, if any, paid to the petitioner as if he was a Secretariat Clerical Cadre employee.

3. In view of the materials brought on record and reasoned orders passed by the Department, I am not inclined to take counter-affidavit in the matter.

4. Heard.

5. The contention, that the petitioner being Typist in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicine must be considered an employee of Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Cadre, is misconceived. Order dated 31.07.1989 whereby petitioner was absorbed on the post of Typist and order dated 03.07.1993 whereby he was confirmed in service, were all issued by the Director, Indigenous Medicines. Order dated 18.07.2000 would also disclose that the petitioner joined the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare. Order dated 07.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.742 of 2007 also does not lend support to the claim of the petitioner that his name should be included in the seniority list of Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Cadre. In the said writ petition, grievance of the petitioner was against denial by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha not to permit him to appear in the Departmental Typing Examination on the ground that he belongs to regional cadre. Whether the petitioner belongs to regional cadre or to the cadre of typists under the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, is a different issue and it is not a factor which may indicate that he belongs to Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Cadre. It is an admitted position that the Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Cadre is a separate cadre of clerical staff, for which a separate examination is conducted. One of the objections 4 raised by the Department of Personnel is that petitioner's absorption was illegal inasmuch as, he was not absorbed in service on the recommendation of Public Service Commission. However, at this stage such irregularity seems to have been condoned by the department, when an order for grant of M.A.C.P has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare. Order dated 07.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.742/ 2007 is primarily based on the ground that other two persons were permitted to appear in the Departmental Typing Examination whereas, the petitioner was arbitrarily singled out. In the said proceeding, the Writ Court did not adjudicate to which cadre the petitioner belongs. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has failed to disclose and the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not refer to any rule, circular, guidelines etc. under which the petitioner who was absorbed on an equivalent post of Typist-cum- Stenographer can seek his inclusion in the list of Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Cadre. The grievance of the petitioner against the direction contained in the impugned orders for his transfer to regional office on the ground that he was absorbed in service in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicine is not founded on any legal right. What legal injury the petitioner would suffer on account of his transfer to a regional office has not been disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot insist for posting on a particular place or to a particular post. The impugned decision of the departmental authorities are neither arbitrary not illegal.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders contained in Memo dated 31.08.2013, 28.01.2014 and 26.02.2015. Accordingly, the writ-petition is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) SI/,


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //