MISSION DIRECTOR RCH Vs. RANJIT JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra-Court appeal the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 11-1-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 13272/2009 (S) by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.

(2.) The State Health Mission is a project which is run by the State Government. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13-12-2006 was appointed on the post of District Accounts Manager by the Commissioner, Health Services and Mission Director, State Health Mission on contract basis for a period of two years on a consolidated salary of Rs. 15,000/-. The services of respondent No. 1 were extended for a period of one year, i.e., upto 10-1-2010. The service conditions of the respondent No. 1 are governed by an agreement executed between the respondent No. 1 and the Chief Medical & Health Officer. The copy of the agreement dated 20-2-2009 has been placed on record as Annexure P-6.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that District Project Manager, namely, Shri Abhilash Kaushal Tripathi (respondent No. 2 herein) is a person having political connections/patronage. When the respondent No. 1 lodged protest against the irregularities committed by respondent No. 2, he got enraged and threatened the respondent No. 1 that he would ensure that the services of respondent No. 1 are dispensed with. The respondent No. 1 made a complaint dated 20-2-2009 in this regard to Chief Medical and Health Officer. It is further averred in the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 got a false complaint made against him that he had issued certain bearer cheques. As soon as the respondent No. 1 came to know about the aforesaid complaint by way of abundant caution. He submitted a detailed representation to the Commissioner, Health Services. However, eventually vide order dated 4-12-2009 the services of the respondent No. 1 were dispensed with on the ground that he had issued various bearer cheques instead of account payee cheques and, therefore, his integrity is doubtful. It was further stated that the period of appointment of respondent No. 1 has already come to an end in February, 2009.