GEETA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that she was working with effect from 14.4.1989 on the post of Basic Health Worker. She was appointed by the order dated 13.4.1989 and was posted at Primary Health Centre (PHC) Barhani, District Chandauli/Varanasi. In the year 1998, the petitioner was transferred to Chahnnia, thereafter, on 20.5.2011, she was transferred to Niyamtabad Primary Health Centre. Vide order dated 20.12.2010, she was given notional promotional pay scale. In pursuance of the order dated 14.2.2011, the petitioner has joined at Main Health Centre, Niyamtabad, Chandauli before the respondent No. 4 on 24.2.2011 on the post of Health Visitor and since then the petitioner was working on the post of Health Visitor under the supervision of the respondent No. 4. By the impugned order dated 23/27.7.2011, the respondent No. 5, Smt. Pushpa Tewari, who has also notionally promoted, being the seniormost, posted as Health Visitor at Main Health Centre, Niymtabad, Chandauli and petitioner has been asked to work on the original post till further order.

(3.) IN Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is stated that there are eight posts of Health Visitors at Primary Health Centre, Niyamtabad, District Chandauli, out of which one post fell vacant on account of the retirement of Smt. Gulabi Devi on attaining the age of superannuation. Smt. Pushpa Tiwari, respondent No. 5, who was the seniormost Basic Healt Worker, amongst those who were given notional promotion, has been given the charge of Health Visitor. Since no other vacancy of Health Visitor was available, the petitioner was asked to work as a Basic Health Worker, but the grade or salary has not been affected in any manner. It is also stated that since Smt. INdrawati Verma, Smt. Tara Devi and Smt. Munni Devi were not granted notional promotion, therefore, none of them could have been given the charge of Health Visitor. Since Smt. Shakuntla Rai and Smt. Lakhsmi Devi are posted at different Blocks and have no concern with the Niyamtabad Block where the petitioner is presently posted, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity on the basis of holding charge by notional promotion. Since by the impugned order, a legal arrangement was only made and no loss or injury is caused to the petitioner, therefore, it was found that no opportunity of hearing was required. Learned Standing Counsel supported the case of the respondent No. 5.