Ashok Anand … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi 2. The Health Secretary
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1498 of 2019 Ashok Anand … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi 2. The Health Secretary, Ranchi 3. The Managing Director, National Health Mission, R.C.H Campus, Namkum, Ranchi 4. The Administrative Officer, R.C.H Campus, Namkum, Ranchi 5. The Medical Officer, In-charge, Nirsa Community Health Center, Nirsa, Ranchi 6. The Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad Sadar Hospital Campus, Dhanbad … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kr Jha, Advocate : Mr. Awanish Shekhar,AC to AAG-I ----- Order No. 10 Dated: 08.05.2024 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter No.9/RCH-900/2016-268 (MD) dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) issued by the Mission Director, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Committee, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner’s application for reconsideration of the matter relating to termination of his contractual engagement with effect from 15.04.2016 from the post of Block Programme Manager, Community Health Center, Nirsa Block, Dhanbad under National Rural Health Mission, has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1 petitioner was appointed on the post of Block Programme Manager, Community Health Center, Nirsa Block, Dhanbad under National Rural Health Mission vide letter No. 9/RCH-201/09- 666/10(RCH) dated 30.04.2010. He was assigned the work of implementation and monitoring of all the programmes under NRHM and was required to work in coordination with the District Programme Management Unit. In course of performing the assigned duty, the petitioner found that ANM, field workers and doctors were not taking enough interest in male sterilization, routine vaccination and Institutional Delivery Programmes and as such, he made numerous complaints to the concerned superior officers against the erring persons, however, no action was taken against them. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Mission Director, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Committee vide letter no. 2593 (MD) dated 01.06.2016 which was replied by him on 06.06.2016. However, the contract of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect vide letter no. 16541(RCH) dated 15.06.2016 issued by the Administrative Officer, N.H.M, Jharkhand. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3656 of 2016 before this Court. 3. It is further submitted that a similarly situated Block Programme Manager, Jaridih Block, namely, Bhawesh Chandra Prakash was also terminated on similar allegations and he also filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6953 of 2016 before this 2
Decision
Court. Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of vide common order dated 22.10.2018 quashing the orders of termination of contractual engagement of the petitioners with a direction to the respondents to take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law after due consideration of the reply furnished by them. 4. The petitioner filed a fresh representation before the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Ranchi on 02.11.2018 enclosing a copy of order dated 22.10.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3656/2016. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to reply the allegations levelled against him by presenting himself before the Mission Director, JRHM on 07.12.2018 whereafter he submitted a detailed reply explaining that being a Block Programme Manager, he was not concerned with the field work carried out by doctors, ANMs as well as other medical and para- medical staff and thus, he was not responsible for not achieving the assigned target in any manner as he was entrusted with the programming aspects only. 5. It is further submitted that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were also of the opinion that petitioner was not at fault and the allegations against him was baseless & incorrect, however, the Mission Director, JRHM took a totally different view in the case of petitioner as compared to the view taken in the case of other similarly situated person namely, Bhawesh Chandra Prakash [the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 6953 of 2016] 3 who has been reinstated in service with effect from 01.05.2019 vide order as contained in letter No. 1377 (RCH) dated 24.04.2019 issued by the Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Committee. The petitioner has been made scapegoat to safeguard the persons who were actually responsible for not achieving the assigned target of various programmes as they were regular government employees. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed as Block Programme Manager, Nirsa Block, Dhanbad purely on contractual basis and as per the appraisal report of the financial year 2015-16, it was found that the progress of Nirsa Block, Dhanbad was below expectation and as such, a show cause notice was issued to him vide memo no. 2593 (MD) dated 01.06.2016. The contractual engagement of the petitioner was terminated vide office order as contained in letter no. 1654(RCH) dated 15.06.2016 after due approval of Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, Executive Committee, JRHMS, Jharkhand. 7. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 22.10.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3656 of 2016, the Administrative Officer, NHM, Jharkhand issued notice vide letter no. 3495(RCH) dated 03.12.2018 to the petitioner to appear before the Mission Director, JRHM on 07.12.2018 to present his stand. The petitioner filed his reply on 14.12.2018 with a prayer to withdraw the order of termination of his contractual 4 engagement, however, his application was rejected vide office order as contained in memo no. 268(MD) dated 13.02.2019 after considering his reply and on providing due opportunity of hearing to him. 8. It is also submitted that in compliance of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6953 of 2016, Mr. Bhawesh Chandra Prakash was heard and it was found from his clarification that his achievement at the block level was not very good, rather could be considered satisfactory and as such, his contractual engagement was restored with effect from 01.05.2019 by partially accepting his explanation. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that pick and choose method has been adopted by the respondent authorities by fixing responsibility on the petitioner for lesser percentage of achievement in different programmes such as institutional delivery-public facility, female sterilization, JSSK expenditure, IUCD, male sterilization, routine immunization, total expenditure against BRE etc. 11. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order issued vide letter no. 268(MD) dated 13.02.2019 which reflects that on the one hand, the petitioner has been punished for the said lesser percentage of achievement in different programmes under 5 Jharkhand Rural Health Mission, however, on the other hand, no action has been taken against those persons who were directly connected with the execution of the work such as doctors, ANMs and other medical and para-medical staff. 12. Another aspect of the matter is that Bhawesh Chandra Prakash, a similarly situated Block Programme Manager has been reinstated in service observing that all the assigned works under the National Health Mission are the matter of joint responsibility, whereas the petitioner has been made solely responsible for the shortcomings in the achievements of the said programmes. Thus, I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities have treated the petitioner differently vis-(cid:224)-vis a similarly situated person. 13. That apart, in the case of the petitioner, it has been observed by the Mission Director, JRHM that if the petitioner had established communication with the In-charge Medical Officer so as to resolve the shortcomings, the result would have been better and that the lesser percentage of achievement in different programmes is indicative of the fact that the petitioner has failed to discharge his responsibility. It is also evident from the impugned order that none of the explanations given by the petitioner in his reply has been considered by the Mission Director while rejecting his request for reinstatement. Moreover, it is also evident from the record that the Civil Surgeon, 6 Dhanbad had not made any adverse remarks against the petitioner, rather he had mentioned in his note that the work of the petitioner was satisfactory. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned order as contained in letter No.9/RCH-900/2016- 268 (MD) dated 13.02.2019, whereby the petitioner’s application for reconsidering the order of termination of his contractual engagement as Block Programme Manager, Community Health Center, Nirsa Block, Dhanbad has been rejected, is quashed and set-aside. The respondent no. 3 is directed to ensure reinstatement of the petitioner forthwith at the Community Health Center from where he was terminated. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 7