The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 902 of 2016 1. HariharMandal 2. Nawal Kishor Mandal 3. Shushil Kumar Mahto 4. Md. Moddeshwar Husain 5. Ghanshyam Mandal 6. Karuna Kumari 7. Nilesh Kumar 8. Manoj Kumar Modi … … … Petitioners V E R S U S 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Danthal Pargana Pramandal, Dumka 4. The Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka … … … Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE DR JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner - Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents - Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I 23/19.05.2023 Heard. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo no. 284, dated 25.11.2015, whereby their representations submitted in terms of order dated 31.08.2015, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4418 of 2009 has been rejected. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release arrears of salary for the period from March, 2004 to December, 2005 as they had performed duties during the said period. Petitioners have also prayed for payment of salary from January, 2006 as the department had illegally ousted them from the office without any notice and further to allow them to perform duties treating them in continuous service. 3. According to the petitioners, they were working as a volunteer workers/ daily wagers in the office of the respondent no. 4 since 1994 and similarly situated other workers moved before the High Court of Patna, Bihar vide C.W.J.C. No. 4941 of 1995 and order was passed by the Court to absorb the volunteer workers in the office of the respondent no. 4. In pursuance to order and direction of the Court, the respondents made various RC/ 2 communications requesting therein for absorption of volunteer workers. Thereafter, in the year 2002, the petitioners were absorbed in the service in light of order and direction of Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4941 of 1995. When the letter no. 43, dated 11.02.2002 was received in the office of the respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder petitioners were absorbed and were posted under the respondent no. 4, then on the same day the respondent no. 4, vide office memo no. 04, dated 11.02.2002, requested the respondent no. 3 to verify the authenticity of the said letter no. 43, dated 11.02.2002. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3, vide memo no. 203, dated 16.05.2002, informed the respondent no. 4 that the memo no. 43, dated 11.02.2002 is verified and the same letter were issued in absorption of the volunteer workers. Though the petitioners were being paid salary after their absorption but without assigning any reason, the respondents stopped making them payment and since 2006 they were being driven out and not being allowed to attend the office. Petitioners continued to raise their grievances before the respondents by making representations and personal meeting but no heed was paid. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed W.P.(S) No. 4418 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.08.2015 giving liberty to them to file fresh representation. However, even after filing representations, grievance of the petitioners have not been redressed and claim of the petitioners have been rejected vide memo no. 284, dated 25.11.2015. Petitioners have also sought information under Right to Information Act which was replied vide memo no. 15, dated 12.01.2016 categorically stating that the petitioner nos. 3 and 5 had been posted at Health Centre at Kalipahari and Kanadih respectively for the periods 29.10.2002 to 25.07.2003. In spite of best efforts, grievance of the petitioners have not been redressed and as such they have knocked door of this Court.
Legal Reasoning
had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4418 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated 31.08.2015 had directed to file fresh representation but illegally and arbitrarily the same has been rejected without assigning cogent reasons. Learned counsel further submits that stand of the respondents that no document is available regarding their appointment then how can it be presumed that the appointment of the petitioners were based on forged and fabricated documents. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents may be directed to consider case of the petitioners for payment of salary for the period they have worked and also to allow them to perform their duties as they have been appointed in various posts by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhalpargana at Dumka and their service be treated to be continuous without any break. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I vehemently opposing contention of learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire claim of the petitioners are based on forged and fabricated documents. The matter was duly inquired into by the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka and it was found that petitioners have misguided the Court that they were working on the said posts and the claim of gratuity is based on forged and fabricated documents. Vide memo no. 582, dated 14.11.2009, it was informed that these petitioners never worked on any post, neither any documents are available regarding their working on any post. The letter no. 394, dated 31.12.2001 is forged and fabricated. The Memo no. 43, dated 11.02.2002 was never received in the office of the Additional Medical Officer, Dumka and there is no document available regarding their appointment and payment of salary. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhalpargana, vide letter no. 232, dated 20.07.2018, has informed the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka vide letter no. 43, dated 11.02.2002, has not been issued by the office of the Regional Director and the same is forged and fabricated document and these petitioner were never appointed against any RC/ 4 post. The Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, vide letter no. 189, dated 18.07.2018, got the matter duly verified from the Provident Fund Officer, Dumka and it was found that the allotment number regarding the GPF has wrongly been said to be the allotment number of the petitioner whereas the same belongs to the other. The Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka has also directed to lodge the FIR and the same has already been lodged vide letter no. 31, dated 23.02.2016. Petitioners have based their claims on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and as such their claim has rightly been rejected. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is fit to be dismissed. 7. Having heard rival submission of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for any interference. The appointment of the petitioners are based on forged and fabricated documents. Nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioners were ever appointed. Even the GPF numbers allotted to them were found to be forged and fabricated and the entire claim of the petitioners are based on forged and fabricated documents. The claim of the petitioners in W.P.(S) Nos. 2887 of 2014, 2885 of 2014, 2880 of 2014 and 328 of 2014 has also been turned down and direction had been given to lodge the FIR and the same has already been lodged as their claims were based on forged and fabricated documents and appointments obtained fraudulently. Earlier in a similar matter, the matter was directed to be inquired by Shri Sudhir Tripathy, the then Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand whereby a detailed report was furnished which itself shows that all the appointments in the Health Department of Dumka were based on forged and fabricated documents. The claim of the petitioners are identical and it has also been verified and inquired by the Additional Chief Medical Officer. It was also found that claim of gratuity based on wrong allotment number was based on forged and fabricated documents. 8. From perusal of counter affidavit filed by the respondents, particularly paragraphs 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, it is apparent that the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, after conducting enquiries and on perusal of all the documents, has directed to lodge FIR against the writ RC/ 5 petitioners, which has already been registered as Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 47/2006, dated 01.03.2016 for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumnka. The petitioners were never engaged by the respondents any time earlier. Petitioners managed to issue letter no. 394, dated 31.12.2001 by manipulating and forging the matter, 9. From perusal of documents brought on record and the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that the entire claim of the petitioners are based on forged and fabricated documents. Writ petition is devoid of any merits and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/
Arguments
4. Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vociferously argues that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were absorbed in the service in the year 2002 by the respondent no. 3 and were posted at different centers. It is only since the year 2006, they have not been allowed RC/ 3 to work or to enter into the premises of the respondents. Even after representation case of the petitioners have not been considered neither they have been paid their salary. Learned counsel further submits that earlier they