IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.7.2008
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
W.P.No.29952 of 2006 (T)
O.A.No.4807 of 1996
A.K.Rajabhushanam .. Petitioner
vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary
to Government, Health Department
Madras-9
2. The Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicines
Madras-6 .. Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the file relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in R.No.139500/MP5/95-S2, dated 25.11.1995, and direct the second respondent to promote the applicant with reference to the promotion of his juniors namely N.Arumugam in the seniority list.
For petitioner : Mr.P.M.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.
2. It is stated by the petitioner that he was appointed as a Basic Health Worker, on 6.7.1963. His services as a Basic Health Worker was regularised, with effect from 1.7.1966, in reference No.R.13270/A3/82, dated 29.2.1988. By an order of the Assistant Director of Health Services and Family Planning, Madras, dated 31.10.1973, the petitioner was promoted as a Basic Health Inspector, Tiruvannamalai. By the proceedings, dated 23.9.1974, the petitioner’s service was regularised in the post of Basic Health Inspector.
3. It is further stated that the posts of Basic Health Inspector and Health Inspectors are interchangeable and they carry the same scale of pay. However, the petitioner was reverted from the promoted post on the ground of want of vacancy. The action of the second respondent in reverting the petitioner from the higher post of Basic Health Inspector to Basic Health Worker is illegal and invalid. Several persons, who are juniors in position as compared to the petitioner, have been allowed to work as Basic Health Inspectors. Some of them had also been transferred as Health Inspectors. After repeated representations were made by the petitioner, the second respondent, by proceedings, dated 25.11.1995, had once again promoted the petitioner to the post of Health Inspector Grade-I, ignoring his earlier regularisation in the post of Basic Health Inspector. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for his promotion from the date on which his juniors have been promoted and he is entitled to the seniority and the other consequential benefits due to him.
4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was originally appointed as a Field Worker under the National Malaria Eradication Programme, with effect from 6.7.1963. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Basic Health Worker under the maintenance phase, with effect from 1.11.1967. His services in the post of Basic Health Worker were regularised, with effect from 1.11.1967 and he was declared to have completed his probation by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine in his proceedings, dated 25.1.1974. Later, his services in the post of Basic Health Worker was regularised, retrospectively, with effect from 1.7.1966 and deemed to have completed the probation period on 10.7.1968.
5. It has been further stated that the petitioner’s temporary services in the post of Basic Health Inspector was regularised, with effect from 22.11.1973 and he was reverted as a Basic Health Worker, with effect from 27.9.1975, for want of vacancy. The posts of Health Inspector and Basic Health Inspector are different categories and are not interchangeable. The Basic Health Inspector can be appointed as Health Inspector by recruitment by transfer, as per G.O.Ms.No.110, Health, dated 17.3.1977, with retrospective effect from 1.7.1966. Further, the petitioner had been reverted as Basic Health Worker from the post of Basic Health Inspector, for want of vacancy. The petitioner knowing the facts about the reversion for want of vacancy did not make any representation for further promotion till 8.1.1989. Only on 9.1.1989, he had requested for promotion as Health Inspector (Multipurpose Health Supervisor) after a lapse of almost 14 years. Hence, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, unsustainable in the eye of law.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted at this stage, as the petitioner has come before this Court after a lapse of nearly 14 years. The petitioner had been originally appointed as Basic Health Worker, on 6.7.1963 and his services were regularised, with effect from 1.7.1966. He was promoted as Basic Health Inspector, on 31.10.1973 and his services were regularised in the post of Basic Health Inspector by the proceedings, dated 23.9.1974. While so, an order of reversion, dated 19.7.1975, had been passed against the petitioner. Even though it is claimed by the petitioner that he had made representations against the order of reversion passed against him, on 24.3.1989 and 9.1.1989, it has not been shown as to how he had not initiated any action, with regard to the order of reversion, even after the lapse of many years till the date of the filing of the original application in the year 1996. Challenging the impugned order, dated 25.11.1995, by which the petitioner had been temporarily promoted as Multipurpose Health Supervisor (re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I) from the post of Multipurpose Health Assistant (re-designated as Health Inspector Grade II). Even though the petitioner had been reverted as Basic Health Worker from the post of Basic Health Inspector, for want of vacancy, on 19.7.1975, the petitioner had kept quiet for nearly 14 years thereafter, till the year 1989, when he had made representations requesting that he may be promoted as a Multipurpose Health Supervisor. Since the petitioner had slept over his rights, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
lan
To:
1. The Secretary
to Government, Health Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Madras-9
2. The Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicines
Madras 6