In The State of Bihar, through, The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. Upendra Sharma. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 22-page long judgment dated August 19, 2025. This is the 22nd judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice. Justice Pancholi concluded:"we are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed error while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 26. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, allowed."
In Upendra Sharma vs. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), Justice Harish Kumar, the Single Judge had passed a 3-page long judgement dated September 3, 2024 concluded:"this Court has left with no option but to direct respondent no.3, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad, to ensure payment of aforesaid GPF amount along with up-to-date interest as well as Group Insurance amount within a period of six weeks from today. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction."
The respondent was the original writ-petitioner who had preferred the captioned writ petition before the High Court. In the said writ petition, the writ-petitioner had mainly contended that the respondent/original writ-petitioner was provisionally appointed to the post of Health Servant by order dated 07.07.1989 under the signature of Regional Director, Health Service, Magadh Division, Gaya. The service of the respondent/original writ-petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 09.06.1994 under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. Thereafter, respondent/original writ-petitioner was posted in the Primary Health Centre, Madanpur, Aurangabad. However, after a period of 14 years from the date of his appointment, his services came to be terminated vide order dated 28.06.2003 under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. It was the case of the respondent/original writ-petitioner that his services were terminated without following due procedure of law and by violating Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Respondent/original writ-petitioner, therefore, challenged the said action of the State by filing CWJC No. 8083 of 2003 before this Court. It was also stated by the respondent/original writ-petitioner that the petition filed by the respondent/original writ-petitioner was finally heard along with other similar type of matters filed by similarly situated employees and the said matters were disposed of vide common order dated 08.09.2003. Writ petitions were allowed by the Single Judge and thereafter the respondent/original writ-petitioner was reinstated in service. It was further the case of the respondent/original writ-petitioner that thereafter service of the respondent/original writ-petitioner was again terminated along with others by referring to the order passed in LPA No. 969 of 2003, wherein the respondent/original writ-petitioner was not party.
Finally, the High Court passed an order in LPA No. 1202 of 2010 preferred by the State, which was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2014 and thereafter the respondent/original writ-petitioner was again terminated vide order dated 10.10.2014. The respondent/original writ-petitioner thereafter preferred SLP(C) No. 29306 of 2014 before the Supreme Court against the order dated 24.09.2014 passed in LPA No. 1202 of 2010. It was stated in Paragraph 20 of the memo of the petition that the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent/original writ-petitioner was decided against the respondent/original writ-petitioner by the Supreme Court along with other matters by order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 and allied matters.
In this background of the litigation, the respondent/original writ-petitioner had filed the captioned petition in which it was stated that the respondent/original writ-petitioner is entitled to get statutory benefit of Group Insurance and General Provident Fund pursuant to letter bearing Memo No. 571(4) dated 01.07.2020 issued under the signature of Director-in-Chief (Disease Control, Public Health Para Medicals) Health Services, Bihar. The grievance of the respondent/original writ-petitioner in the writ petition was that though the respondent/original writ-petitioner is entitled to get the statutory benefit of GPF as well as Group Insurance, the said benefits were denied to him, whereas similar type of benefits were given to the other similarly situated persons who were also petitioner before the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment