Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohan Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the peaceful working of petitioner as A.N.M. at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Chail in District Allahabad and that a writ of mandamus be also issued directing the respondents to pay the salary and arrears of salary along with 12% interest since August, 2003 onwards. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as A.N.M. in the year 1981 and since then is working in the Primary Health Centre at Chail in District Allahabad. On 23rd July, 2003, the petitioner was transferred from Chail to Kada and was directed to hand over the charge to Smt Suman Dwivedi, who was posted on that place in her place. The petitioner made a representation for the cancellation of her transfer order on personal ground, which was duly considered by the authority, and by an order dated 4th September, 2003, the transfer order of the petitioner was cancelled, and she was allowed to work at the place where she was originally working, namely, Primary Health Centre, Chail in District Allahabad (now District Kaushambi). As a result of the cancellation of the transfer order, the petitioner remained at Chail. It has also come on record that during the pendency of the petitioner's representation, she did not hand over the charge to Suman Dwivedi, though the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Suman Dwivedi was allowed to join at Chail. The problem arose when the petitioner and Suman Dwivedi started working at the Primary Health Centre at Chail. Whereas, Suman Dwivedi was paid her salary, the petitioner was not paid her salary. The petitioner made a representation, which fell on deaf ears. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner was threatened with dire consequences by respondent nos. 5 and 7, namely, by the then Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Officer In-charge I, respectively. It has been stated that subsequently the Chief Medical Officer issued an order dated 1st November, 2003/4th November, 2003 directing that the petitioner would be paid the salary from PHC, Chail and that Smt Suman Dwivedi, who was earlier working at PHC, Nevada, would draw her salary from that Centre alone. This suited the petitioner, but subsequently, without any rhyme or reason, the Chief Medical Officer reversed its order and issued a fresh order dated 12th of December, 2003 directing that Suman Dwivedi will receive her salary from the Primary Health Centre, Chail and that the petitioner should approach the authority at the Public Health Centre, Nevada for release of her salary. This order was not accepted by the petitioner, and consequently, the stalemate continued. The petitioner continued to discharge her duties at Chail and the authorities remained adamant not to release her salary and insisted that the petitioner should open an Account in a Bank at Nevada so that her salary could be released from Primary Health Centre, Nevada.
(3.) IN this manner, the situation continued, and eventually, the petitioner approached the writ Court in the year 2004. The Court by an interim order dated 7th September, 2005, directed the respondents to show cause why salary to the petitioner had not been paid for two years. The Court further directed respondent nos. 4 and 5 to file their personal affidavit, in spite of which, the respondent no. 5 did not file his personal affidavit. However, on 21st September 2005, the respondents produced two treasury cheques for a sum of Rs.48350/- and another for Rs.50100/- and 3 cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda, Branch Nevada, District Kaushami for a sum of Rs.51942/-, 8350/- and 25490/- towards the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner. The order sheet of 13th October, 2006 further records that the respondents produced three cheques from the Nevada Branch, total Rs.2,40,023/- towards the arrears of salary and again impressed upon the Court praying that the petitioner should open an Account in Nevada so that her salary could be deposited in that Account. This matter was taken up in August, 2008 and the same thing was reiterated all over again, namely, that the petitioner has not been paid the salary from September, 2006 onwards. The learned Standing Counsel sought instructions and again intimated the Court that the salary has not been paid to the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner has not opened an Account in Bank in Nevada in district Kaushambi, and therefore, the salary could not be deposited in her Account. On 27th August, 2008 the respondents produced three cheques drawn from the Nevada Branch for a sum of Rs.19900/-, 113130/- and 88085/- towards arrears of salary for the period September, 2006 to April, 2008.;