JEOTI TIRKEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I appearing for the Respondent-State as well as Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6.

(2.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing the order of the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 20.03.2009 in Annexure-1, pertaining to recovery of the amount of Rs. 49,086/- from the salary of the petitioner for the period from 29.04.1987 to 2000-2001 for the excess amount of salary in view of the order of the Deputy Accountant General (Respondent No. 6).

(3.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application are that initially the petitioner was appointed as 'A' Grade Nurse in the year 1987 and from the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been discharging her duties with utmost sincerity and to the satisfaction of the higher authority. While continuing, as such, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 20.02009 has directed for recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 49086/- during the period 29.04.1987 to 2000-2001 from the salary of the petitioner due to non-passing of the examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting as per the impugned order vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted representations raising her objections for such unilateral decision in absence of principles of natural justice. The said representation has been followed with another reminder vide Annexure-3, wherein, the stand has been taken that there is no necessity for passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination for the post of Auxiliary Nursing Midwife, hereinafter in short to be referred as 'ANM' but the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 08.07.2009 without considering the same in the right perspective. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed further representations vide Annnexure-5 and 5/1 but the said representations seem to have fallen on the deaf ears of the respondents. It has been averred in the writ application that vide letter dated 26.06.2007 of the Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand, which, inter alia, envisages that the technical post including the post of 'A' Grade Nurse, the passing of the examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting is not a condition precedent for grant of increment. Also, the Circular dated-28.02.1972 indicates that the post of the Auxiliary Nursing Midwife is exempted from passing the examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting. Again the Circular dated 30.05.1992 of the Director, Health, Bihar about passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting has been referred to. The petitioner successfully qualified the Examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting in the year 2003, as per Annexure-10 and 10/1 to the writ application. It has further been submitted in the writ application that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 9431 of 2006 (Kiran Kumari and others -vs.- State of Bihar and others), wherein, the Hon'ble Court by allowing the writ application has directed for refund of the recovered amount. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-1 to the writ application, the petitioner left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.