High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Md. Ejaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors. on 14 March, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Md. Ejaz Ahmad vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors. on 14 March, 2011
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                        MJC No.355 of 2010
                 MD. EJAZ AHMAD, SON OF LATE MD. IZHARUL HAQUE, RESIDENT
OF MOHALLA- KARBIGAHIYA, P.O.- PRITHVIPUR (CHIRAIYA TAR), P.S.-
JAKKANPUR, PATNA- 800001, ASSISTANT, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
DISPENSARY, JAMAL ROAD, PATNA :---PETITIONER.
                                                Versus
               1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                  LABOUR RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
               2. MD. VEYAS JEE, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR
                  RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
               3. DR. AKHILESH SINGH, THE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL SERVICES,
                  EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE SCHEME, UNDER LABOUR
                  RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
               4. DR. BIRENDRA KUMAR THAKUR, THE INSURANCE MEDICAL
                  OFFICER I/C, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE DISPENSARY,
                  JAMAL ROAD, PATNA :----OPPOSITE PARTIES.
                                                  with
                                 CIVIL REVIEW No.271 of 2010
                                     1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
   2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF
                                      BIHAR.
  3. THE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL SERVICES, EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE SCHEME
           UNDER LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR.
4. THE INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER, I/C E.S.I. DISPENSARY JAMAL ROAD, PATNA
                                 :--PETITIONER.
                                                Versus
                   MD. EJAZ AHMAD, S/O- LATE MD. IZHARUL HAQUE, R/O- MOH.-
       KARBIGAHIYA, P.O.- PRITHVIPUR TAL, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DIST. PATNA:--
                                 RESPONDENT.
                                              -----------

3. 14.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

the State.

2. The contempt application has been filed

asserting non-compliance of the orders of this Court

dated 23.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 15995 of

2009, Annexure-A, whereunder this Court asked the

Director, Medical Services, Employees State

Insurance Scheme to consider the case of the

petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance. Such

prayer has been refused by the Director, Medical
-2-

Services under orders dated 19.03.2010 which is

contained in Annexure-C to the review application

filed for review of the order dated 23.11.2009 on the

ground that petitioner having not reported his

attendance at the place of his headquarter is not

entitled for payment of subsistence allowance in the

light of proviso to sub-rule (iii) (1) of Rule 10 of the

Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Rules) which inter alia require the government

servant under suspension to mark his attendance at

the place of his headquarter.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner

that request of the petitioner for payment of

subsistence allowance was refused under order dated

19.03.2010 without appreciating the fact that his

medical condition was such that he could not made

himself available at the place of headquarter and had

requested for change of the headquarter. In support of

such plea reliance is placed on the prescription of the

Out Patient Department of the Nalanda Medical

College Hospital Unit Dr. Prof. A.K.Sinha-II dated

08.01.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner

that if the medical condition of the petitioner as is

appearing from the prescription dated 08.01.2010

was not acceptable to the Director, Medical Services
-3-

he ought to have asked the petitioner to appear before

a medical board so as to confirm the findings

recorded in the prescription dated 08.01.2010. It is

also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his

suspension has now been vacated and he has joined

his place of posting at Jamal Road, Patna.

4. Let the Director, Medical Services,

Employees State Insurance Scheme consider the

correctness or otherwise of the contents of the

medical prescription dated 08.01.2010 by asking the

medical officer who has issued such prescription

about the real state of health of the petitioner during

the relevant time and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law. It goes without saying that if the

condition of the petitioner at the relevant time was

such that he could not have gone to Banjari, the

authorities will not insist on enforcing the proviso to

sub-rule (iii) (1) of Rule 10 but before coming to such

finding the actual state of health of the petitioner at

the relevant time must be ascertained.

5. Both the applications are accordingly,

disposed of.

(V.N.Sinha,J.)
P.K.P.