Rajkumar S/O Natthuji Belsare vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4518 Bom

14-WP1745.21(j)                                                                                     1/6




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 1745 of 2021

       Rajkumar s/o Natthuji Belsare,
       Aged about : 37 years, Occupation : Service.
       R/o. Flat No.303-A, Empressa Classic Homes,
       Shambhu Nagar,
       Nagpur-440 030. (Phone No.9975638353)
                                                    ....... PETITIONER

                              ...V E R S U S...

1.    State of Maharashtra,
      through its Secretary,
      Ministry of Public Health, Mantralaya,
      Mumbai-400 032.

2.    The Civil Surgeon,
      Government General Hospital,
      Wardha.

3.    Dr.Mariya Khatun Sultan Ahmad,
      Medical Officer, Grade - I,
      Government General Hospital,
      Wardha.

4.    Maharashtra State Aids Control Society,
      through its President,
      Acworth Leprosy Complex,
      R.A.Kidwal Road, Wadala (W),
      Mumbai - 400 031.
                                                                     ....... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri T.D.Mandlekar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.M.Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 &
2.
None for respondent nos.3 and 4 though served.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022                                  ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 11:04:46 :::
 14-WP1745.21(j)                                                                         2/6




            CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                    SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, JJ.

DATE : 28th APRIL, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner 'Lab Technician', having been appointed on

contractual basis for every year till 2019-20, was not continued with his

contractual service with effect from 01.04.2020. The petitioner was informed

by the communication dated 31.03.2022 that his contractual service came to

an end on 31.03.2020 and since it was decided to not renew it, it would not be

renewed any further. He was relieved from the job by the respondent no.2.

3. On such non-renewal of the contractual service of the petitioner, the

petitioner made an enquiry and learnt that submission of false report by the

Committee of which Civil Surgeon, Wardha was a part that the performance of

the petitioner was not satisfactory was the basis for the decision to not renew

his contractual service. The petitioner laid his hand on a communication dated

23.10.2020 and also some other documents which indicated that the record

was created against the petitioner regarding non-satisfactory performance of

his contractual service. Therefore, the petitioner has also questioned the

14-WP1745.21(j) 3/6

legality and correctness of the communication dated 23.10.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

communication dated 23.10.2020 is contrary to the certificate issued by the

Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Wardha on 13.11.2019 and the evaluation

report dated 04.07.2020 sent by District Project Officer, General Hospital,

Wardha. He points out from these documents that the performance of the

petitioner, while rendering his service on year to year basis from the year 2009

till the year 2019-20, was perfect and completely satisfactory and, therefore, it

is an injustice to the petitioner that the Authorities, which had found the

performance of the petitioner as satisfactory earlier, have now sent adverse

report of non-satisfactory performance of the petitioner on duty. In these

circumstances, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that

the impugned order dated 31.03.2020 became stigmatic and, in any case, the

communication dated 23.102020 is patently stigmatic and untrue and,

therefore, both these documents deserved to be quashed and set aside.

5. So far as the communication dated 23.10.2020 challenged in this

petition by the petitioner is concerned, we do not think that the challenge is

sustainable in law. The reason being that this communication is an internal

communication of the department of the respondents and it forms a part of the

14-WP1745.21(j) 4/6

internal correspondence between its officers and, therefore, it makes no impact

on the public image of the petitioner in the sense that the internal

correspondence being not part of public domain, would not come in the way of

the petitioner in securing employment elsewhere and, therefore, no challenge

can be made to the document dated 23.10.2020, which is a part of the internal

communication between the two different officers.

6. As regards other communication dated 31.03.2020, we find that

this communication does not terminate midway the contractual service of the

petitioner. It only states that the Project Director of the Maharashtra State Aids

Control Society, Mumbai has taken a decision to not renew the contractual

service of the petitioner any further and, therefore, the petitioner would stand

relieved from his job as 'Lab Technician' with effect from 31.03.2020, the date

on which the contractual service of the petitioner was even otherwise expiring.

The communication dated 31.03.2020 does not give any reason for not

renewing the contractual service of the petitioner and, therefore, by no stretch

of imagination, it can be called as stigmatic.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of

the contractual service of the petitioner has come from the respondent no.2-

Civil Surgeon, Wardha, but, he is not an authority to do so in law. According

to the learned counsel, the appointing authority was the respondent no.4 and,

14-WP1745.21(j) 5/6

therefore, if any communication of termination was to be issued, it ought to

have been issued by the respondent no.4 only. The argument cannot be

accepted for two reasons. Firstly, there is no pleading in this petition and new

case is being tried to be made out by the petitioner of which no notice has been

given to the respondents. Therefore, this submission cannot be considered in

any manner. Secondly, the communication dated 31.03.2020 is a reflection of

the decision taken by the respondent no.4 himself. It shows that the decision

to not renew the contractual service of the petitioner is not taken by the Civil

Surgeon, Wardha-respondent no.2 but by the Project Director, Maharashtra

State Aids Control Society-respondent no.4. Therefore, the submission made in

this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is rejected.

8. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Gridco

Limited and another vs. Sadananda Doloi and others (2011) 15 SCC 16,

Ramendra Nath and etc. vs. Mandi Samiti, Sultanpur and another AIR 1989

Allhabad 154, Priyanka Datta vs. State of Tripura and others AIR Online 2019

Tri 171 and of this Court in Writ Petition No.6109 of 2015 (Dr.Akankhsa Vinod

Bele vs. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 17.12.2015, to support

his argument that whenever a stigmatic order is passed, show cause notice and

giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party both are necessary.

14-WP1745.21(j) 6/6

There can be no quarrel about the law laid down in these cases.

But, on the facts of this case discussed earlier, we are of the view that the law

propounded by these cases would have no application to the facts of the

present case. The impugned communication was found to be non-stigmatic by

us. It only says that a decision has been taken to not renew further the

contractual service of the petitioner.

9. Considering the fact that the petitioner was appointed on

contractual service on the establishment of the respondent no.2 since the year

2009 till 31.03.2020, we direct the respondent no.4 to give sympathetic

consideration to the representation that the petitioner now proposes to make

seeking renewal of his contractual service as it is his submission that the Civil

Surgeon, Wardha has already certified his performance in the year 2019 to be

satisfactory. If any such representation is made by the petitioner within two

weeks from the date of the order, the same shall be considered appropriately

and decision rendered within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt

of such a representation by the respondent no.4.

10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

No costs.

                  (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)          (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Andurkar