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.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1. This intra-Court appeal by the appellants is directed against the judgment dated 15.04.2024 passed by a Single Judge of this Court [‘the Writ Court’] in WP(C) No. 598/2020 titled ‘Pameet Singh vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others’ whereby the writ Court has allowed the petition of the writ petitioner [‘the respondent herein’] and quashed order No. 226 dated 13.02.2020 to the extent it pertains to the respondent only. The writ Court has held the respondent entitled to continue as Data Entry Operator (DEO), District Hospital, Kathua and for all the wage arrears of the intervening period w.e.f the date of passing of Court order dated 25.02.2020 till the passing of the judgment and also thereafter.

2. Impugned judgment is assailed by the appellants on multiple grounds. However, before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Raman Sharma,learned AAG appearing for the appellants to assail the impugned judgment of the Writ Court, we deem it appropriate to set out few facts as are necessary for disposal of this appeal.

3. The respondent came to be engaged as ‘DEO’ on contractual basis in the District Health Society, Kathua in terms of an order bearing No. DMPU/NRHM/K/743-53 dated 04.01.2010 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kathua. While the respondent was performing his duties as ‘DEO’ in the District Hospital, Kathua, an order bearing No.226 dated 13.02.2020 came to be passed by appellant No.2 whereby the respondent along with other staff members working in similar capacity under NHRM in different Districts of Jammu province came to be shifted from their original places of posting outside their Districts. The respondent No.1 was ordered to be shifted from District Hospital, Kathua to District Hospital, Kishtwar by providing specifically that he would continue to draw his remuneration from the original place of posting after submitting monthly attendance report from the concerned CMO/Medical Superintendent/BMO. The order was passed by the appellant No.2 purportedly in the interest of administration and as a part of rationalization of the Programme Management Staff working under NHM.

4. Feeling aggrieved of his shifting from District Hospital, Kathua to District Hospital, Kishtwar in terms of order dated 13.02.2020, the respondent filed WP(C) No. 598/2020 on 24.02.2020 i.e after 10 days of passing of the order of his shifting. When the petition came up for consideration on 25.02.2020 before the Writ Court, the writ Court, while issuing notice to the appellants (respondents before the Writ Court) which was waived by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, also provided, by way of an interim arrangement, that the respondent shall not be relieved from his place of engagement. The interim directions were extended from time to time.

5. The appellants herein contested the writ petition and filed their reply affidavit. They took a stand that shifting of the respondent along with 10 others was necessitated as a measure of rationalization and was otherwise in the interest of administration. It was submitted that the exercise for rationalization, which was carried out by the appellant No.2, was appreciated by all others except the respondent including the members of All J&K National Health Mission Employees’ Association. It was also brought to the notice of the Writ Court that the respondent, who was directed to join at his new place of posting in District Hospital, Kishtwar in terms of the order impugned in the writ petition, did not obey the order and remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties, as a result whereof, the Heath Care Delivery System in District Hospital, Kishtwar was seriously jeopardized.

6. The petition was considered by the Writ Court in light of the rival contentions and the documents on record and the Writ Court, vide order and judgment impugned, came to the conclusion that the respondent was a contractual employee having his engagement confined to District Kathua and, theref