*Imposes cost of Rs 30,000 on Health Deptt
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 15: High Court today said that State should not indulge in pick and choose policy and be fair enough for every person so that for petty issues the doors of the judiciary are not knocked.
These observations were made by Justice Tashi Rabstan while deciding the petition filed by one Parvinder Singh seeking quashment of communication No. HD/NG/06/2013 dated May 2013.
Vide this communication the Health Secretary had asked the Director Health Services Jammu to process the case of petitioner for compensation in lieu of land donated for construction of hospital building instead of appointing the petitioner against Class IV post in the Health Department.
After hearing Advocate Sindu Sharma with Advocate Garima Gupta for the petitioner whereas AAG Rohit Kapoor for the State, Justice Tashi Rabstan quashed the communication No. HD/NG/06/2013 dated May 2013 issued by the Secretary to Government, Health & Medical Education Department as well as Government Order No.145-HME of 2014 dated March 10, 2014 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Health & Medical Education Department.
“Official respondents are directed to offer employment to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today in terms of SRO 181. While offering employment, official respondents would also take into consideration that besides requisite qualification, the petitioner also possess light as well as commercial driving license with five years experience in driving”, High Court said.
Before parting with the judgment, Justice Rabstan observed, “this court would like to project the concern that such like matters ought to have been settled by the State functionaries at their own level taking the genuineness of the same”, adding “such cases not only waste the time of the court but also put unnecessary burden on the State exchequer besides putting aggrieved persons to acute mental torture/harassment”
“Being a welfare State, it ought to have been fair enough for every person not to indulge in pick and choose policy. The present case is a clear example of this where on one hand the official respondents have appointed two persons of the same family in December 2010 in relaxation of qualification bar for the land acquired by them in the year 1989 and on the other hand they disallowed the case of petitioner despite being fully eligible in terms of SRO 181”, High Court further observed.
With these observations, High Court directed the State to bear and pay the cost to petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today after proper verification and identification, which is quantified at Rs 30,000. “It is made clear that in case the official respondents fail to deposit the cost within this period, Registrar (Judicial) shall frame a separate Robkar against them and after issuing notice to them, list the same before the court”, Justice Rabstan said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel