Skip to content


Priyank Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Priyank Dubey

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt:


.....approached this court and, therefore, the respondent authorities have yet to apply their mind to the aforesaid issue. in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case or commenting upon the entitlement of the petitioners.the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners file a representation before the respondent authorities within three weeks from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider the same and take a decision on the representation of the petitioners as early as possible in accordance with law before proceeding any further pursuant to the impugned decision dated 31.7.2013 towards disengaging the petitioners and before any third party rights are created and while doing so take into consideration the directions issued by the ministry of health and family welfare, government of india, w.p.no.13891/2013 priyank dubey & ors.  vs.  state of m.p. & ors.4 new delhi. it goes without saying that in case the respondents take a favourable decision in favour of the.....

Judgment:


W.P.No.13891/2013 Priyank Dubey & Ors.  vs.  State of M.P. & ORS.1 29.08.2013 Dr.

Anuvad Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioneRs.I.A No.11943/2013, for taking additional documents on record, is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Documents be taken on record and consolidated with the original petition.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioneRs.who have been working since long as Block Programme Managers and other posts in the Scheme under the National Rural Health Mission in districts Hoshangabad and Betul, have filed this petition being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents dated 31.7.2013 by which the respondents have taken a decision not to continue with the services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons and to bring the services to an end by issuing one month's notice.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been working under the Scheme and Programme of National Rural Health Mission as Block Child Health Managers in Hoshangabad and Betul districts and have acquired knowledge and experience in the said field.

It is W.P.No.13891/2013 Priyank Dubey & Ors.  vs.  State of M.P. & ORS.2 submitted that the Scheme being implemented under the National Rural Health Mission are not being stopped or closed down but are in fact being continued as is evident from the letter Annexure P-14 that has been written by the Mission Director regarding absorption of Block Child Health Managers who are working under the Scheme.

It is further submitted that the document dated 13.8.2013, filed by the petitioners alongwith the application for taking additional documents on record, further indicates that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi has also written to the Mission Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of M.P.informing them about the approval provided for the financial year 2013-14 and also directing them to consider as to whether to absorb or not to absorb the Block Child Health Managers as Block Programme Managers but the authorities, instead of doing so, have issued the impugned decision dated 31.7.2013 which is contrary to law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.it is observed that the letteRs.Annexure P-14 and the subsequent financial approval granted by the Mission Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, dated 13.8.2013, have not been W.P.No.13891/2013 Priyank Dubey & Ors.  vs.  State of M.P. & ORS.3 taken into consideration by the respondents while taking the impugned decision.

It is also observed that the petitioners have also not brought the aforesaid documents to the notice of the respondent authorities by filing a representation but have directly approached this Court and, therefore, the respondent authorities have yet to apply their mind to the aforesaid issue.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case or commenting upon the entitlement of the petitioneRs.the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners file a representation before the respondent authorities within three weeks from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider the same and take a decision on the representation of the petitioners as early as possible in accordance with law before proceeding any further pursuant to the impugned decision dated 31.7.2013 towards disengaging the petitioners and before any third party rights are created and while doing so take into consideration the directions issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, W.P.No.13891/2013 Priyank Dubey & Ors.  vs.  State of M.P. & ORS.4 New Delhi.

It goes without saying that in case the respondents take a favourable decision in favour of the petitioneRs.they shall issue appropriate directions in this regard.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition, filed by the petitioneRs.stands disposed of.

C.C as per rules.

( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE msp.mms/-


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //