STATE OF U P Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the State of U.P. and its officers in the department of Medical and Health Services seek to question the judgment and order dated 09.10.2014 as passed in Claim Petition No. 1972 of 2011, whereby the State Public Services Tribunal, while setting aside the orders questioned by the claimant ( respondent no. 1 herein), has directed the present petitioners to pay him salary for the period 12.07.1993 to 05.04.2009 together with interest @ 7% per annum and for all consequential benefits permissible under the rules. The Tribunal granted such relief to the respondent no. 1 after being satisfied that he was willing to work, but was illegally not allowed to do so for the period of almost sixteen years.

(2.) THE case at hands has its own peculiarity of facts and circumstances with a long drawn dispute between the parties. We may refer only to the facts material and relevant for this writ petition in their feasible chronology as follows: The respondent no. 1 came to be appointed as Health Assistant on 09.01.1978, essentially as a measure of appointment on compassionate ground after his father died while serving the petitioners' department on 18.12.1977. The respondent no. 1, after the said appointment on 09.01.1978, continued to serve with the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar, until happening of the events that led to the present dispute.

(3.) BY an order issued on 29.06.1993, the Director, Family Welfare, transferred the respondent no. 1 from Kanpur Nagar to Unnao on administrative grounds. However, a copy of this order dated 29.06.1993 was endorsed to the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar with the suggestion that before carrying out compliance of the transfer order, this be got verified that the appointment of the respondent no. 1 was accorded by a competent officer and that his appointment was regular in nature. It was also stated in the endorsement that entire responsibility was of the endorsee because the application of the incumbent had been forwarded by the said Chief Medical Officer. This endorsement has led to various complications and disputes and could be taken note of as under: