RUKMINI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-4-30
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 13,2009

RUKMINI DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) THE sole petitioner Rukmini Devi working as Female Health Worker (Mahila Kaksha Sevika) in Pakur Hospital at Pakur, has filed this writ application, challenging the order as contained in Letter No. 619 dated 07.07.2004 of the Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, whereby he directed the Civil Surgeon - cum - Chief Medical Officer, Pakur to terminate the service of the petitioner on the ground that her appointment on such post was illegal. Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash the consequential letter No. 1127 dated 01.08.2004 issued by the Civil Surgeon - cum - Chief Medical Officer, Pakur by which the petitioner has been restrained from discharging her duties. The case of the petitioner as set out by her is that since 1983, she has been working as Female Health Worker (Mahila Kaksha Sevika) in the Health Department in Pakur Hospital, Pakur on temporary basis and her service was regularized on the said post by issue of an Order contained in Memo No. 304 dated 15.01.1986 in the scale of Rs. 350 - 5 - 425 vide Annexure -2. She continued to work on the said post and thereafter, she was confirmed in her service on the aforesaid post by issue of Memo No. 20 dated 10.07.1996 under the signature of Civil Surgeon - cum - Chief Medical Officer, Sahebganj. On completion of ten years of service, she was also granted first time bound promotion w.e.f. 07.09.1996. The letter contained in Memo No. 20 dated 10.07.1996 has been annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition.
(3.) FURTHER case of the petitioner is that by issue of Memo No. 146 Pakur, dated 02.02.2002 (Annexure -4), she was directed to give her reply on the following questions: i. Her appointment appeared to be illegal; ii. Her age was about 60 years; iii. Her appointment was not made against any advertisement. iv. She was not a resident of that District. v. Whether she solemnized second marriage and if so, when and with whom. vi. She was asked to produce certificates regarding her date of birth and residence as well as about her educational qualification. This letter has been annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ application. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.