Rajesh Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that she was working with effect from 14.4.1989 on the post of Basic Health Worker. She was appointed by the order dated 13.4.1989 and was posted at Primary Health Centre (PHC) Barhani, District Chandauli/Varanasi. In the year 1998, the petitioner was transferred to Chahnnia, thereafter, on 20.5.2011, she was transferred to Niyamtabad Primary Health Centre. Vide order dated 20.12.2010, she was given notional promotional pay scale. In pursuance of the order dated 14.2.2011, the petitioner has joined at Main Health Centre, Niyamtabad, Chandauli before the respondent No. 4 on 24.2.2011 on the post of Health Visitor and since then the petitioner was working on the post of Health Visitor under the supervision of the respondent No. 4. By the impugned order dated 23/27.7.2011, the respondent No. 5, Smt. Pushpa Tewari, who has also notionally promoted, being the seniormost, posted as Health Visitor at Main Health Centre, Niymtabad, Chandauli and petitioner has been asked to work on the original post till further order. The contention of the petitioner is that the salary of the petitioner will be reduced by Rs. 2,500/- per month and she has been reverted. It is further contended that juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Health Visitor. The respondent No. 4 has passed the order for handing over the charged on 2.8.2011. The orders dated 23/27.7.2011 and 2.8 2011 are impugned in the present petition. Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, submitted that by the impugned order, the petitioner has not been reverted. The impugned order is only aimed to accommodate the Health Visitor against the existing vacancy on the basis of their inter-se seniority. In Paragraph 5 of the counter- affidavit, it is stated that at the Primary Health Centre, Niyamtabad, Block Niyamtabad, there are eight vacancies, out of which one vacancy fell substantively on account of retirement of Smt. Gulabi Devi, Healt Visitor. Thus, according to the seniority list, CA-1 to the counter-affidavit, the respondent No. 5 being the seniormost, is liable to be adjusted. All the Health Visitors, shown in the seniority list, have been given notional promotion, i.e., from the date they became entitled, after completion of ten years or service as Health Worker/Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, ANM,. In Paragraph-6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the answering respondent was initially appointed on 6.1.1983 as a Basic Health Worker, thereafter, she continued in the service and she has also been regularised. She was transferred at various places and the last being dated 2.6.2007 when she was transferred from Primary Health Centre, Barhani to her present place of posting at Primary Health Centre, Niyamtabad. Smt. Geeta Pandey, the petitioner, was transferred to Primary Health Centre only on 20.5.2010 from Primary Health Centre, Chahania, District Chandauli. She reported her joining on 21.5.2010. Smt. Geeta Pandey, though was the junior most Basic Health Worker at Primary Health Centre, Niaymtabad, but she having links with the political high-ups, got her notional promotion done ignoring the seniority list vide order dated 20.12.2010. The notional promotion was given to all the seven Basic Health Workers from the date they have completed ten years of regular service. Smt. Geeta Pandey was the junior most, amongst the Health Visitors and the answering respondent being the seniormost, it was rightly decided by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to adjust the answering respondent against the existing vacancy caused by the retirement of Smt. Gulabi Devi, Health Visitor. The impugned order is not an order of reversal as all the seven Health Visitors, including the petitioner, referred to in the seniority list, continued to be promoted and are getting the promotional pay scale. Since the vacant post of Health Visitor is one, therefore, the seniormost Health Visitor has been accommodated, while the remaining six, including the petitioner are continuing in their original post, but with all the promotional benefits admissible to the Health Visitor.
(3.) IN Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is stated that there are eight posts of Health Visitors at Primary Health Centre, Niyamtabad, District Chandauli, out of which one post fell vacant on account of the retirement of Smt. Gulabi Devi on attaining the age of superannuation. Smt. Pushpa Tiwari, respondent No. 5, who was the seniormost Basic Healt Worker, amongst those who were given notional promotion, has been given the charge of Health Visitor. Since no other vacancy of Health Visitor was available, the petitioner was asked to work as a Basic Health Worker, but the grade or salary has not been affected in any manner. It is also stated that since Smt. INdrawati Verma, Smt. Tara Devi and Smt. Munni Devi were not granted notional promotion, therefore, none of them could have been given the charge of Health Visitor. Since Smt. Shakuntla Rai and Smt. Lakhsmi Devi are posted at different Blocks and have no concern with the Niyamtabad Block where the petitioner is presently posted, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity on the basis of holding charge by notional promotion. Since by the impugned order, a legal arrangement was only made and no loss or injury is caused to the petitioner, therefore, it was found that no opportunity of hearing was required. Learned Standing Counsel supported the case of the respondent No. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit filed in reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, it is only stated that the contents of Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit are matter of record.;