Chhattisgarh High Court
WP/174/2003 of DR.K.C.MESHRAM Vs THE STATE OF C.G.and ORS. on 17 December 2003
I, g? @ C IN THE HIGH COURT oz; CHHATTISGARH AT BIgSpUR writ petition No. i74/ /2oo3. PETITEONEgi pr. K.C.Meshram s/o G.D.Meshram. Maged~ 45 years, Radiologist, Maharani w ; Hogapital, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar é (C.G.). : (l) State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, RESPONDENTS Public
Qmexk Ra {DI,y;g?@CINTHE HIGHCOURToz; CHHATTISGARHAT BIgSpURi74/writpetition[No.]/2oo3.PET[IT][ EONEgi]pr.K.C.Meshram s/oG.D.Meshram.Maged~ 45years,Radiologist,MaharaniHogapital,Jagdalpur,Distt.Bastar;é(C.G.).RESPONDENTS:(l)StateofChhattisgarhThrough:The Secretary,Public Health8c Family Welfare/‘&MedicalEducationDepartment,A[8.-][‘.][ n.]Dan Kalyan SinghBhawan,Raipurmaiw(C.G. ) [.](2)StateofMadhya PradeshThrough:TheSecretary,Public[Health]8:Family Welfare8cMedicalEducationDepartment,VallabhBhawan,Bhopal(M.P.).(3)TheSecretary,GeneralAdminis-trationDepartment(G.A.D.)andState Re-organisationCell,VallabhBhawan,Bhopal(M.P.)(4)Union oiIndiaThrough: TheSecretary,Ministry ofPersonnel,Public’Grievances6: Pension, Personnel6:TrainingDepartment,NewDelhi.”o['g']a?x;WRITpEggTxONUNDERARTICLE226/2I'27OFCONSTITuTioN0F. INDxA:- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
w.P.No.5 16/2003Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Other:Vs.State of Chhattlsgarh and Others W.P.No. 174]2003Dr. KC. Meshram Vs.State of Chhattisaarh and Others w.P.No.6o4/2ooaDr. Suresh Jain
Vs.
State of Chhattiswh end Others
W.P.No.877/2003Dr. Bhojraj SharmaVs.State of Chhattisgaxh and Others W.P.No.878l2003Dr. Smt. Sunita SharmaVs.rstate of Chhattisgnrh and Others
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Post for \7 . 12.2003
Sdl-Fakhruddinx Judge/l " ii"i"Wix17,Ww.
HIGH COURT OFJCHHATTIsGARI-I AT BH‘ASPUR
W.P.No.516/2003
Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Otlmrs
Va.
state of Chhattisgarh and Others
ORDER
Per Fnkhruddin, J:
The order passed inthis petition shall also govern thedisposa’iuof Writ Petitions No. 174/2003 (Dr. Kc. Mesnmm vs.State of CG. and Others), No.6o4/2003(Dr.[Smash][ Jain]vs.State of C.G. and Others), No.877/2003 (Dr. Bhojraj Sharma vs.State of C‘G. and Others) and No.878/2oo3 (Dr. Smt. SummSharma vs. State of C.G. and Others).
2. The petiuoners are doctors.They are serving in tin State. of Chhattisgarh.It is not in dispute that they have been tinallyallocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. They wem directed tobe relieved and were also directed to report to their respectiveplaces[of]posting. However, their relieving has been stayed’andthey have not been relieved so far.
3‘The farts in brief of the cases are that the petitioners ofW.P. No. 516/2003 are posted in Sarguja District. They havebeen allocated and transferred to Katni, Sidhi, Shadol, Datia we ”
and Shadol respectively[vide][ order][ dated][ l9.][ 10.2002](Annexure‘2.P/3) passed by respondent[No.] Their names are at Serial N9.94,103,108,109and59.VidaOrderdated26.10.20025, a direction was(Annexure[P/4)]passed[by][ respondent][ No.]issuedthattheyshouldberelievedandreporttotheirrespectiveplacesof posting.However,as perorders dated28.10.2002(Armexure[P/][ 1)][ passed by][ respondent][ No.][ 4][ and]dated 29.10.2002 (Annexure[P/2)]passed[by][ respondent][ No.]‘5,their relieving has been[stayed.] Thepetitioners[have]prayed[for]quashing[the][ orders][ Annexures][ P/][ 1][ and][ P/2.][ The][ petitioner][ of]W.P.No.174/2003ispostedatJagdalpur.HehasbeenallocatedandtransferredtoChindwaravideorderdated22.10.2002(Anncxurc[P/2)][ passed][ by][ respondent][ No.]2. Hisname is at Serial No.[7.][ Vide][ order][ dated][ 31.][ 10.2002](AnnexureP/ 5) passed by respondent No.1, a direction was issued that heshould be relieved and report[to][ his][ respediv’e]plaee[of]posting.However,hehasnot beenrelievedsofar.HepraysthatresPondent No.1 be directed to relieve[him.][ The]petitioner[of]W.P. No. 604/2003 is posted[at][ Sarguja.][ lie][ has][ been][ allocated]andtransferredtoKatnivideorderdated19.10.2002His name is at Serial[No.]16. Vide order dated(Annexure[P/4).]25.10.2002(AnnexureP/S)passedbyrespondentNo.3,adirection was issued that he should[be][ relieved][and][ report][ to][ his]
respectiveplaceofpostinguHowever,videorderdated28.10.2002(Armcxurc[P/7)]passcd[by][ respondent][ No.]2, hislelieving has beenstayed.He praysfur quashingthe orderAnnexure P/7.The petitioner of W.P. No. 877/2003[ is]postedat Sarguja. He has been allocated and[ transferred][ to][ Panna][ and]relieved vide order dated 26.[10.2002](Annexure[P/6)]passed[by]resfmndent No. 4 with a[direCtion][ to][ report][ to][ his][ respective]place[of]posting[before][ 31.][ 10.2002.][ However,][ vide][ order][ dated]28.10.2002(Annexure[P/8)]passed[by][ respondent][ No.]3 anddated 29. 10.2002 (Annexure[P/9)]passed[by][ respondent][ No.][ 4,]his relieving has been stayed. Heprays[for]qnashing[the orders]Annexures P/8 and P/9.The petitioner of W.P. No.[878/2003]is posted at Sarguja. She has[been][ allocated][and][ transferred][ to]Rajgarh andrelieved vide order[dated][ 26.10.2002](AnnexureP/ 5) passed by respondent[No.][ 4][ with][ a][ direction][ to][ report][ to]herplace[of]posting[before][ 31.10.2002.][ However,][ vide][ order]dated 28.10.2002 (Annexure[P/7)]passed[by][ respondent][ No.][ 3]and dated 29. 10.2002 (Annexme[P/S)]passed[by][ respondent][ No.]4, her relieving has been[stayed.][ She]prays[for]quashlng[the]orders Annexures[P/7] and[ P/8.]'4.These matters came up[for][ hearing][on][ several][ dates.] On22.07.2003,the AdvocateGenerals of the States [of] Madhya'ChhattisgarhPradeshandappearedandShriRavindra Shrivastava, Advocate[General][ for][ the][ State][ of Chhattisgarh,]submittedthat254postsof Assistant Surgeonsarclyingvacant. He further submitted[that] 229[ Assistant][ Surgeons,][ whov]havebeenpostedinChhatisgarh,havebeenallocatedtoMadhyaPradeshand131AssistantSurgeonsand33Specialists, in total 164, posted[in][ Madhya][ Pradesh][ have][ been]allocated to Chhattiegarh-.It was submitted that[if][ the][ State][ of]Chhattisgarhrelievesall22Assistant SurgeonstoState ofMadhya Pradesh, the[vacancy][ of]posts[will][ be][ 483,][ as][ 254]postsare already lying vacant.lt was further submitted[that][ if][ all][ the]officersarerelieved,thehealthservicesintheStateofChhattisgarh will[collapse.]It was also submitted that [in][ order]to Curbtheshortageof governmentdoctors,[vthc]StateofChhattisgarh hadappointeddoctors on contract basisfor aperiod [of][ one]year.Out of 392 doctors[recruited,][76][ have][ not]He also submitted that[in][ the] meantime[ the]joined[their][ duties.]government[is][ taking][ active][ steps][ to][ fill][ up][ the][ shortage][ by][ way]offreshappointments.Itwasalsosubmittedthattherepresentationsofthepetitionershavebeenconsidered;However, it has been[decided][ not][ to][ relieve][ them][ in][ the][ larger]public[interest][ until][ their][ relievers][ come][ from][ Madhya][ Pradesh.]It wasalsosubmittedthatitwouldhedesirablethat theSecretaries of both the States may[ meet][ and][ resolve.]Shri. Vivek
Tankha, Advocate General[fon][ the][ State][ of][ Madhya][ Pradesh,]submittedthatsofarastheStateof Madhya PradcshisLmlcerncd, it has[its] own[ shortage.]He however submitwd[that]the Secretaries of[both][ the][ States][ may][ meat][ and][ resolve.]Boththe Advocate Generals[stated][ that][ they][ are][ trying][ to sort][ out][ the]matter.It is submitted that[certain][ meetings][ have][ been][ held]but the matter could[not be][ sorted][ out.]The persons have beenallocated.They ought to have[been] made[ available.]It wasstated that there was[shortage][ of]government[doctors][ and][ the]elections were going on,[therefore,][ they][ could][ not][ be][ relieved.]Now the elections are[over,][ so they][ have][ to][ be][ relieved.]TheCentral Government[vide][ its][ letter][ dated][ 27.09.2002][ also][ issued]instructions in exorcise[of]powers[conferred][ under][ Section][ 68(3)]of the M.P. Reorganization[Act,][ 2000][ and][ desired][ that][ last][ (late]forrelievingtheStateservicepersonneltotheStateofChhattisgarh is extended upto[ 31.][ 10.2002.]lnspite of this fact,the petitioners have not[been][ relieved][ so][ far,][ though][ several]opportunities have[been] wted[to][ the][ State.]5.Learned counsel for the petitioners[submitted][ that][ the]State authorities have nojurisdiction[to‘stay][ the][ transfer][ of][ the]petitioners[from][ State][ of][ Chhattisgar][ to][ State][ of][ M.P;,][ as][ the]decisionhasbeentakenbytheUnionof Indiaunderthep[rovisions][ of][ Section][ 68(2)][ of][ the][ M.P.][ Reorganizaion][ Act,][ 2000.]
The State authorities cannot override[or][ interfere][ in][ the][ order]
passed[by][ the][ Union][ of][ India.]
6. Section68(2)oftheM.P.ReorganizatiunAct,2000is.
relevant and is quoted below:
“68.Provisionsrelating toservicesin MadhvaPradesh and Chhattisgarh[-]x x x x(1)
(2) As soon as may be after[the]appointed[day,]the Oentml Government shall, by general[or]special order, determine[the][ successor][ State]to which evely person referredto in sub‘section (1) shall be finally[allotted][ for][ service]‘ and the date with effect from which suchallotment shall take en'ect or[be] deemed[ to]have taken ehect.”
7. The respondents / State[of][ Chhattisgarh][ have][ filed][ their]
return.Itis submitted that the State[of][ Chhattisgarh][has]decided to relieve the doctors[allocated][ to][ the][ State][ of][ M.P.][ and]posted[in][ tribal][ areas][ of][ Chhattisgarh][ as][ soon][ as][ their][ relievers]come from M.P.It is further submitted that the[action][ of][ the]State Govemment is humane and[ in][ the][ larger]public[interest.]8.In viewof thelegalposition,theactionof theStateauthorities in not relieving[the]petitioners[cannot][ be][ sustained]and the petitioners are[entitled][ for][ relieving.][ A]perusal[of][ the]return goes to show that neither[the][ order]passed [by][ the][ Union]ofIndianorthedateofrelievingischallenged by[iany]Since thegovernment[including][ the][ State][ of][ Chhattisgarh.]petitioners[have][ been][ allocated][ and][ suilicient][ time][ has][ elapsed,]
Hande/-
@
no justifiable ground has heen made out to[refuse][ the]prayerof relieving of the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed[with][ costs.]Itis dircctcd that thc pctitioncrs bc rclicvcd[forthwith.]
10. Copy of this order be placed in[the][ file][ of] connected[ writ]petitions.
,r\§\Sdl-Fakhruddini *7' («JudgeV‘7(\ilz2oo31\‘Z’
Counsel fee as per scale.