Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
Md Narul Hoque Laskar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam And Ors - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 235 of 2017, 1408 of 2017, 7886 of 2016, 7703 of 2016, 7706 of 2016, 1414 of 2017, 1283 of 2017, 7704 of 2016, 7705 of 2016, 7879 of 2016
Decided On : 09-03-2021
Reversion - Health and Family Welfare Department - NVBDCP - [NVBDCP] - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the reversion of employees from Store Keeper/LDA to the post of Surveillance Worker under the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP). The court held that the subsequent postings of the petitioners as Store Keepers/LDAs were in the same scale of pay of SW/BHW and therefore, cannot be treated as a promotion. The court also noted that the post of SW is an ex-cadre post and is not a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Store Keeper/LDA. The court found that the reversion did not have adverse civil consequences upon the petitioners and therefore, there was no requirement to give any prior notice or opportunity. The court directed that none of the petitioners should be deprived of their seniority from their original dates of their posting as SW/BHW and such seniority be restored on the date from which the petitioners would render service in the substantial post of SW/BHW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were initially appointed as Surveillance Workers (SW) under the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP) and were subsequently designated as Store Keeper/LDA. However, by the impugned orders, the petitioners were reverted back to the post of SW. The petitioners challenged the reversion, claiming that they had accrued a right to continue in the post of Store Keeper/LDA and that the reversion was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated the principles of natural justice. They also argued that the reversion would cause immense hardship and inconvenience and that it was a consequence of an order of the High Court in which the petitioners were not parties. Additionally, some petitioners claimed that their seniority in the cadre of SW was forfeited as a condition for joining as LDA/Store Keeper.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the subsequent postings of the petitioners as Store Keepers/LDAs were in the same scale of pay of SW/BHW and therefore, cannot be treated as a promotion. The court also noted that the post of SW is an ex-cadre post and is not a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Store Keeper/LDA. The court found that the reversion did not have adverse civil consequences upon the petitioners and therefore, there was no requirement to give any prior notice or opportunity. The court directed that none of the petitioners should be deprived of their seniority from their original dates of their posting as SW/BHW and such seniority be restored on the date from which the petitioners would render service in the substantial post of SW/BHW.
Issues: The issues included whether the reversion of the petitioners from Store Keeper/LDA to the post of SW was arbitrary and unreasonable, whether it violated the principles of natural justice, and whether it would cause immense hardship and inconvenience to the petitioners. Additionally, the issue of forfeiture of seniority in the cadre of SW as a condition for joining as LDA/Store Keeper was raised.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent postings of the petitioners as Store Keepers/LDAs were in the same scale of pay of SW/BHW and therefore, cannot be treated as a promotion. The court also noted that the post of SW is an ex-cadre post and is not a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Store Keeper/LDA. The court found that the reversion did not have adverse civil consequences upon the petitioners and therefore, there was no requirement to give any prior notice or opportunity. The court directed that none of the petitioners should be deprived of their seniority from their original dates of their posting as SW/BHW and such seniority be restored on the date from which the petitioners would render service in the substantial post of SW/BHW.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - The subject matter of all the writ petitions being similar, the same are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order.
2. In this set of writ petitions, challenge has been made to the orders of reversion from Store Keeper/LDA or any other equivalent posts to the post of Surveillance Worker under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam. The petitioners have taken various grounds of challenge, including violation of the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned orders which, according to them, have adverse consequences. However, before coming to the issue at hand, it would be convenient to state the basic facts of each of the cases.
3. The petitioner, Shri Manoj Das in WP(C) No.7703/2016 was initially appointed as a Surveillance Worker (hereinafter referred to as the SW) vide appointment letter dated 26.05.1998 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services. During the tenure of his services, he had obtained his diploma in type writing (both in English and Assamese). Since a post of Store Keeper was lying vacant, the petitioner made a prayer for upgrading his services as Store Keeper. It is the case of the petitioner that his post of SW was subsequently designated as Store Keeper in the same scale of pay vide an order dated 05.05.2008 issued by the Addl. Director of Health Services, Assam. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to Barpeta vide an order dated 19.03.2013. Since then, the petitioner claims to be continuously working as LDA. However, by the impugned orders dated 30.11.2016 and 12.12.2016, the petitioner along with other incumbents were reverted back to the post of SW. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any reasons were assigned for such reversion nor he was given any opportunity or notice.
4. The petitioner, Shri Jitumoni Kalita in WP(C) No.7704/2016 was initially appointed as a SW vide appointment letter dated 17.12.2005 issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam. During the tenure of his services, he had obtained qualification in computer and had also completed his M.Sc. in Information and Technology. It is the case of the petitioner that his post of SW was subsequently designated as Store Keeper in the same scale of pay vide an order dated 04.06.2013 issued by the authorities. Since then, the petitioner claims to be continuously working as LDA. However, by the impugned orders dated 30.11.2016 and 12.12.2016, the petitioner along with other incumbents were reverted back to the post of SW. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any reasons were assigned for such reversion nor the petitioner was given any opportunity or notice.
5. The petitioner, Ms. Syeda Jurima Ahmeda in WP(C) No.7705/2016 was initially appointed as a SW vide appointment letter dated 11.04.2008 issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam. During the tenure of her services, she was deputed to the office of the District Malaria Officer, Barpeta in the leave vacancy of an LDA. The said post was subsequently designated as LDA in the same scale of pay vide an order dated 25.01.2010 Page No.# 12/27 issued by the authorities. Since then, the petitioner claims to be continuously working as LDA. However, by the impugned orders dated 30.11.2016 and 12.12.2016, the petitioner along with other incumbents were reverted back to the post of SW. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any reasons were assigned for such reversion nor the petitioner was given any opportunity or notice.
6. The petitioner, Md. Abedul Haque in WP(C) No.7706/2016 was initially appointed as a Basic Health Worker (hereinafter referred to as the BHW) vide appointment letter dated 06.05.1995 issued by the District Malaria Officer, Nalbari. It is the case of the petitioner that his post of BHW was subsequently designated as Store Keeper in the same scale of pay vide an order dated 28.06.2006 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Assam. In the meantime, the petitioner als
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
