The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors Vs Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma: Unnecessary Summoning Of The Public Officers Is Strongly Condemnable

DATE OF JUDGEMENT :
09 July 2021

CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

PARTIES:
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Appellant)
Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma (Respondent)

ISSUE

Whether the order of the High Court to pay the back wages to the respondent is justified.

SUMMARY

A writ petition challenging the transfer order of a Medical Officer was brought before the Court. The petitioner did not join the post and waited for years for getting the order, which is not possible and demanding a back wage for his own wrongdoing is not acceptable. It is not justified that the petitioner delayed the proceedings of the Court for 13 years. Public officers should not be summoned before the Courts time and again according to the whims and fancies of the Court, this delays the works allotted to them.

OVERVIEW

• The writ petitioner was a Medical Officer in Uttarakhand and was transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh as per the option given to Medical Officers, after reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
• The Medical Officers were discharged in phases and the release of the petitioner was in the second phase, along with 22 other Medical Officers.
• The petitioner submitted a joining report to the Director Medical Health Services of Lucknow and addressed another letter requesting posting in Ghaziabad or Bijnore District, instead of where he was posted.
• A writ of mandamus was filed by the petitioner commanding the State to post him according to his qualification and experience.
• The Court ordered a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited before the Court saying that the State Government did not act according to their responsibility and the decision regarding the matter should have been taken immediately.
• After the posting of the petitioner, another writ petition seeking order for payment of back wages was filed. The Court dismissed it, directing decision in four weeks. The payment was declined stating that he did not work for the Government during that period. The Court passed the order that the back wages could not be denied and since the petitioner was gainfully employed, he should be given 50% of the back wages.
• The petitioner did not join the post he was allotted and waited for years for the order which is impossible to wait for. The High Court summoned the Health Secretary numerous times to the Court, which was strongly condemned by the Court as it acts as a hindrance to the duties of the officer and public interest.

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT

• The counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner did not join at his post in Badaun.
• The counsel for the petitioner stated that all the Medical Officers who were discharged had submitted the report to the Director Medical Health Services and not at the place of posting.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner was relieved by the State of Uttarakhand, the communication for which had been addressed by the Joint Director and the joining report of the petitioner that was to be submitted, was submitted before the Director Medical Health Services and not the place of posting. So the question of the appellant party not having shown the transfer and posting was not properly addressed by the High Court.
2. The Supreme Court relied on the judgement passed by it in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, where the question of suspension order had arisen and the Court had clearly mentioned that the communication is what is important and not the receipt of the same. More than 100 Medical Officers were transferred on the same transfer order whereas the petitioner did not report even when he was released.
3. The petitioner had started practice privately which shows his lack of interest in joining as a Medical Officer. He had been discharged in 2003 and he filed the petition after 3 years. It is not logical to think that he had been awaiting orders for all this time.
4. The petitioner was also gainfully employed and it has been 13 years since, which implies that he had been idle for 13 years. This implication is impossible to imagine and giving him back wages would be unjustified and condemnable. Even after that, the Government issued posting orders after the High Court’s decision, which was not necessary as the petitioner had not joined and disciplinary actions should have been initiated.
5. The High Court had issued summons to be present before the Court in-person. Some of the High Courts have been time and again calling the public officers “at the drop of a hat” which is not acceptable. The Executive and Judiciary are two different bodies for the proper functioning of the democracy. Having such orders to force the officers to act according to the whims of the Court is unjustified.
6. The officers are the limbs to the body of governance and summoning them time and again delays the works that they have to do. They work for the benefit of the public and for the Government. The Court referred to the case of Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club and Anr. V. Chander Hass and Anr., which stated that the judges must know their limits and not act as emperors, as the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have their own matters to deal with.
7. If one is constantly involved in the matters of another, then the balance that the Constitution wants to protect would be upset.
8. The Court has to be respected but it is commanded, not demanded. Court’s action to summon the officers is only hampering public interest. The proceedings take a lot of time and it becomes an additional burden on the officers.

CONCLUSION

The petitioner should have joined his post and then waited for his transfer as he had sent a letter for transfer. He was in no position to order for a transfer. A person not working for the Government cannot be paid wages for something he has not done. The actions of the petitioner do not account for any compensation. The petition did not need to be dragged for more than a decade to be solved.

A person should not exploit the rights given to him for being a part of the country. Similarly the Court should not exercise its power to constantly summon the officers and should remember the line of difference between the Judiciary and Executive. The case is an eye opener for the public and the Court as well. Though the issue that was before the Court was on the issue of transfer and the back wages, but the Court also addressed the wrongful practices of some High Courts.