- (1.) Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in this petition for writ is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13811/2011 decided on 13.04.2012. The only difference I found in the matter is that the petitioner in the present case is holding the post of Peon, whereas in the case referred above, the petitioners were holding the post of Patient Counselor.
(2.) Having considered all the facts of the case and the law laid down by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13811/2011, this petition for writ is disposed of with the following observations and directions :- (i) The petitioner has been engaged in RHSDP and continued till 30th September, 2011, thus, discontinuance with the closure of project cannot be held to be illegal. (ii) If the Health Managers engaged under RHSDP are continued despite of denial of budget, then respondents are directed to take proper view in the case of petitioner so as to give him similar treatment. In case, Health Managers are not continued at DH Level then aforesaid exercise can be ignored. (iii) It is further directed that in future if service for Peon is required, petitioner would be given preference looking to his experience. (iv) If the petitioner continued either by way of interim order or otherwise by the respondents, then it goes without saying that he would be paid salary/remuneration for the period he was allowed to serve as Peon.;