Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
Pameet Singh, S/o. S. Kamarjeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K, through Secretary, Health & Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 598 of 2020
Decided On : 15-04-2024
NHM - Contractual Engagement - F. No.10(22)/2009-NHRM dated 14.05.2010, NHM Policy, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare guidelines - The court discussed the contractual appointments under NHM, the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, and the NHM Policy, emphasizing the locality-specific nature of the contractual engagement and the prohibition of inter-district transfer. The court highlighted the malice in the impugned order and ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order and entitling the petitioner to wage arrears.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Data Entry Operator (DEO) under NHM, challenged an order relocating him to a different district, contrary to the nature of his contractual engagement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned order to be malafide and in violation of NHM guidelines, ruling in favor of the petitioner and quashing the order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the petitioner's contractual engagement, the validity of the impugned order, and the prohibition of inter-district transfer under NHM Policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's engagement did not allow posting outside his parent district, quashing the impugned order and entitling the petitioner to wage arrears.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned order and entitling the petitioner to wage arrears.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the writ pleadings and the record accompanying.
2. This writ petition originally came to be filed by two petitioners namely, Pameet Singh as the petitioner No. 1 and Royal Bakshi, as the petitioner No. 2, both feeling aggrieved in their respective way, of an Order No. 226 dated 13.02.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Mission Director National Health Mission (NHM), Govt. of UT of J&K in terms whereof the original place of posting of eleven persons serving as Programme Management Staff came to be changed to new places of posting falling in different districts purportedly contrary to the nature and purpose of their contractual engagement meant for discharge of duty in the parent district only.
3. The afore-named two petitioners figured at serial No. 5 (petitioner No. 2) & 9 (petitioner No. 1) of the said Order dated 13.02.2020. The petitioner No. 2-Royal Bakshi came to withdraw himself from the writ petition in terms of an order dated 08.10.2020 leaving the writ petition to be pursued only by the petitioner No. 1-Pameet Singh and, as such, this writ petition is now bearing sole petitioner said Pameet Singh and, accordingly, the reference of facts would be pertaining to the petitioner-Pameet Singh only.
4. The petitioner-Pameet Singh came to be engaged on contractual basis in the District Health Society, Kathua in District Programme Unit/Block Programme Management Unit under the Adolescent Reproductive & Sexual Health (“ARSH” in short) at District Hospital, Kathua under the National Rural Health Mission (“NRHM” in short) by virtue of an Order No. DMPU/NRHM/K/743-53 dated 04.01.2010 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kathua as being Vice-Chairman of the District Health Society, Kathua.
5. In terms of this order dated 04.01.2010, the contractual appointment of the petitioner came to take place as Data Entry Operator (“DEO” in short) under ARSH District Hospital, Kathua on monthly honorarium of Rs.4,500/-(pre-revised). The terms and conditions upon which the petitioner’s engagement was to be governed were stated in the said order of engagement No. DMPU/NRHM/K/743-53 dated 04.01.2010. The contractual engagement of the petitioner came to be continued by periodic renewals and place of posting at District Hospital, Kathua.
6. Thus, from January, 2010 onwards, the petitioner came to serve his engagement as DEO in the District Hospital, Kathua without any discontinuation and displacement when suddenly by virtue of an Order No. 226 dated 13.02.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 - Mission Director NHM, Govt. of J&K the petitioner along with ten other staff members under NRHM engaged in different districts of Jammu province came to be shuffled and shifted from their original places of posting.
7. In terms of said order dated 13/02/2020, the petitioner was ordered to be shifted from his posting as DEO, District Hospital, Kathua and posted to District Hospital, Kishtwar and the posting order was said to have come into operation with immediate effect.
8. The petitioner reckoned this so called order of posting amounting to his displacement as prejudicial to the very basis of the engagement of the contractual staff/employees and thus came forward with this writ petition filed on 24.02.2020 i.e., within ten days of the passing of the impugned order, reckoning him not relieved from his posting in the District Hospital Kathua and having not received even the said order of transfer on account of being on leave at the relevant point of time.
9. This Court, in terms of an order dated 25.02.2020, came to direct that the petitioner be not relieved from his place of posting and that being the District Hospital, Kathua. Despite this direction, which is obtaining as on date, the fact remains the petitioner was somehow not allowed to serve his engagement as DEO District Hospital, Kathua by the authorities/officials concerned on the pretext that his relieving has taken effect with immediacy upon pass
The central legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of inter-district transfer under NHM Policy and the locality-specific nature of contractual engagements under NHM.
The court ruled that shifting a contractual employee from one district to another without justification is impermissible under the NHM Scheme, and unauthorized absence negates entitlement to salary.
Contractual employees can be subject to transfer if explicitly stated in their employment contract, limiting rights akin to permanent employees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
Point of Law : Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer orde....
The main legal point established is that transfer in a transferable job is an exigency of service, and the Courts should not readily interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for adm....
Transfer orders in government service must be made in public interest and administrative exigencies, and modifications to such orders require valid justification; courts will not interfere unless the....
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
