BABITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 457 dtd. 11/4/2018 (Annexure-10), whereby, the In-charge Medical Officer, Sarwan, Deoghar, has intimated the petitioner not to work on her post Sahiya Sathi on humanitarian ground in the light of letter contained in Memo No. 255 dtd. 8/3/2018 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Jharkhand. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dtd. 5/7/2017, by which, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer directed the In-charge Medical Officer to hold a meeting and select Sahiya Sathi in place of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on her post of Sahiya Sathi and also pay arrear of honorarium.

(2.) The case of the petitioner lies in a short compass. The petitioner was initially appointed on 16/6/2007 as Sahiya (Didi). In December, 2010, she was appointed as Sahiya Sathi, Cluster-Chandana, Sarwan and continued to work on the said post. It is the case of the petitioner that she had written an application to the In-charge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Sarwan on 26/12/2016 for maternity leave for two months. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 4/1/2017 to the petitioner stating that during course of enquiry, she was found absent unauthorisedly from the work place. The petitioner replied the same on 10/2/2017 annexing medical report that she was under treatment from 3/1/2017 to 5/1/2017. Thereafter, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar wrote a letter dtd. 5/7/2017 to the Medical Officer, Sarwan to hold a meeting and select a Sahiya in place of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that the Treasury Officer as well as the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Jharkhand, Ranchi made requests to the concerned authority for allowing the petitioner to resume her duty, but no heed was paid to the direction of the Authorities nor any order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner. The respondents have stopped the petitioner from working and also honorarium is not being paid and hence, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been illegally ousted from her duty. She has been stopped by the respondents without following the due procedure of law. Learned counsel submits that even honorarium has not been paid to her. She was absent from duty as she was on family way and she had also applied for maternity leave, but the same was illegally not entertained. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for the maternity leave, which is her accrued right in view of the rules and regulations of the State Government. Learned counsel further submits that without the respondents have stopped the petitioner from continuing as Sahiya Sathi, without initiation of any departmental proceeding. No charge has ever been framed. No termination order has been brought on record to show that the petitioner has been terminated from service and without issuance of any formal order, the petitioner has been stopped from continuing on the post and also no honorarium / incentive has been paid. Learned counsel further argues that surprisingly on 25/6/2021, the petitioner has been sent for skill training by the respondents, that too without any payment. Therefore, learned counsel submits that a direction be given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume her duty as Sahiya Sathi and to pay the honorarium as well as incentive from the date she has been stopped to work and also the arrears of honorarium.