THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus DR. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 09-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
DR. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 2320 of 2021)
JULY 09, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law: Back wages – Payment of, to Medical officer –
Justification of – On facts, petitioner-Medical officer transferred
to State of Uttar Pradesh as per the option given by the Medical
officers – Though the petitioner posted at place B, but he did not
join there and gave letter to Director of Medical Health Services of
his joining in that office – Writ petition by petitioner seeking the
State to post him as a Medical Officer in any Hospital, allowed by
the Single Judge – Pursuant thereto, petitioner was issued fresh
posting order – Thereafter, another petition by petitioner seeking
payment of back wages – However, the Principal Secretary declined
the grant of back wages since the petitioner did not perform any
government work from 2003 till 2016 – Said decision challenged
by filing another writ petition – Single Judge holding that the
petitioner was gainfully employed during this period but still granted
50% back wages – Division Bench upheld the same – On appeal,
held: Petitioner was to report at the place of posting and after
reporting at the place of posting, he should have asked for transfer,
if permissible – He could not have dictated the place of posting
without even joining the place where he was first posted – Also he
could not defy the order of transfer on the ground of non-
communication when more than 100 Medical Officers were
transferred by the same common transfer order – Order of
Uttarakhand Government relieving the petitioner was in pursuance
of the order of the UP Government, thus, is a case of feigned
ignorance – Furthermore, under the guise of waiting for his posting
orders he started his own private practice in the said period – As
the petitioner was gainfully employed, the grant of 50% of back
wages for the entire period would be giving benefit of one’s own
wrong who intentionally abstained from duty for 13 long years – In
view thereof, the State was negligent in not taking action against
the writ petitioner for absence from duty – Thus, the orders of the
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 48
48
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
49
High Court are wholly unjustified, unwarranted, arbitrary and
illegal and are set aside.
Judicial deprecation: Summoning of public officers – Practice
developed wherein certain High Courts calling public officers
frequently to court – Held: Summoning of officers frequently is not
appreciable at all – Same is condemned in the strongest words –
Line of separation of powers between Judiciary and Executive is
sought to be crossed by summoning the officers and in a way
pressurizing them to pass an order as per the whims and fancies of
the Court – Public officers of the Executive are also performing
their duties as the third limbs of the governance – Public officers
should not be called to court unnecessarily – Dignity and majesty
of the Court is not enhanced when an officer is called to court –
Summoning of the officer is against the public interest as many
important tasks entrusted to him gets delayed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the petitioner stood relieved from
Uttarakhand, the High Court could not have returned a finding
that the State did not show as to how the transfer and posting
order was conveyed to the petitioner. It was not open to the writ
petitioner to defy the order of transfer on the ground of non-
communication when more than 100 Medical Officers were
transferred by the same common transfer order. Firstly, he stood
relieved by the State of Uttarakhand and secondly, he did not
report at the place of posting but submitted an application before
Director Medical Health Services. [Paras 11 and 12][56-F-G;
57-E-G]
1.2 The writ petitioner was relieved by the Government of
Uttarakhand in 2003, however, he filed writ petition in 2006,
meaning thereby for three years, “he was awaiting posting
orders”. Under the  guise  of awaiting posting orders, he started
private practice and intentionally delayed the decision on the writ
petition for almost 13 years. Such conduct of the writ petitioner
suggests that he was not keen to join as a Medical Officer after
he was relieved by the Government of Uttarakhand. The writ
petitioner cannot take a stand that he had not received the order
dated 06.03.2002. The order of Uttarakhand Government
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. DR. MANOJ
KUM

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.