1 2025:CGHC:7531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3450 of 2015 Order Reserved on : 04/12/2024 Order Delivered on : 12 /02/2025  Sant Kumar, S/o Ramlal, aged about 29 years, resident of Gali No.2, Infront of Pathak General Store, Gayatri Mandir Road, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Health, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Mission, National Health Mission, 4th Floor C.g. Housing Board Commercial Complex, South East Corner, Sector – 27, New Raipur, District New Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Software) For Petitioner : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate. For State/Res. No. 1 : Ms. M. Asha, P.L. For Res. Nos. 2. : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (CAV Order) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.12.2014 2 (Annexure P1) issued by respondent No.2, whereby salary of the petitioner from 26.12.2013 to 03.09.2014 of the petition was not paid though he was terminated. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 05.08.2012, the petitioner was appointed as District Training Coordinator on contract basis by the respondent no. 2 and joined his service accordingly. The respondent authorities paid the salary of the petitioner till 26th December, 2014, and thereafter, the petitioner was not paid salary for which is is entitled for. Being aggrieved by the non payment of salary for the month of April, May and June, 2014, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) 5907/2014 against the respondent, which was vide order dated 14/11/2014 disposed of by this Hon’ble Court permitting the petitioner to file detailed representation before respondent No. 2 along with copy of order within ten days and further directed respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate order within further period of four week. Thereafter, in compliance of the Court’s order, on 21.11.2014, the petitioner preferred detailed representation (Annexure P/5) seeking unpaid salary from December 26, 2013 to date of termination i.e. September 3rd, 2014 and also sought his unpaid Provident Fund amount. When the representation of the petitioner remained unattended for more than four 3 weeks, he filed a contempt petition being Contempt Case No.26/2015 against the respondent no. 2, wherein vide order dated 23.01.2015, the Hon'ble Court directed the respondent 'Director, Mission Health Mission' to decide the same as directed by the Court vide dated 14/11/2014. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 31/01/2015, again filed detailed additional representation before the respondent no. 2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was terminated from the services by the order dated 03.09.2014 (Annexure P/6). The respondent authorities finally decided the representation of the petitioner but denied his salary for the months of January to August, 2014. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities on the basis of attendance register found that he only worked for one day i.e. in the month of February, 2014. Hence, this petition by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15/12/2014 (Annexure P/1). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities without showing any reason in support of such action, passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P/1), which is at all not sustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the liberty was granted to the petitioner by this Hon’ble Court to approach the respondent by way of representation but the same was decided malafidely and he was denied salary from January 4 to August, 2014, for which he was definitely entitled. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has performed his duty with utmost satisfaction and regularly engaged in the duty of conducting training to the trainee. The petitioner was not absent from his duty and thus, he is entitled for his salary as prayed for in this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.2 – Director Mission, National Health Mission, Raipur and all the reliefs claimed by the petitioner is against the National Health Mission, Raipur, which has separate legal entity and is not a department of the State Government. The recruitment of the employees of the National Health Mission is governed by the independent set of rules and not by the rules framed by the State Government. Learned State counsel also submits that no relief has been claimed against the State Government and the State is formal party in this case and it is not filing any reply on merit being a formal party. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in first round of litigation, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5907/2014, which was vide order dated 14.11.2014, disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent No.2, who 5 in turn, pass appropriate order in respect of the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent in compliance of the Court’s order dated 14.11.2014, passed the order dated 15.12.14 (Annexure P-1) within a time prescribed, whereby the period from 26.12.2013 to 03.09.2014 regarding the petitioner's claim for salary has been considered. Learned counsel further submits that while passing the impugned order unfortunately "the period from 26-12-2013 to 25.01.2014", the answering respondent mentioned in the order dated 15.12.2014, that the petitioner remained absent in the above days and he is having zero attendance and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the above period and further the period from 26.01.14 to 25.02.14 was not mentioned by respondent. The above mistake is only because of typographical error from the side of respondent, for which the answering respondent prays apology from the Hon'ble Court for committing such mistake. Learned counsel also submits that the aforesaid mistake would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner regarding non-payment of his salary. The petitioner remained present for 15 days from 26-12-2013 to 25-01- 2014 and for the said period, the petitioner has been provided with salary and accordingly for the period 6 26.01.2014 to 25.02.2014 the petitioner remained present for 27 days, for which the petitioner has been provided with salary. The respondent fairly considered the case of the petitioner and no fault has been committed by the respondent on their part and all the dues of the petitioner has been settled by the respondent. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner always remained absent from his duties without prior approval and consent of the higher authorities and in continuance of the same during the period of 4.02.2014 to 6.02.2014 the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly and on 7.02.2014 without any explanation to the higher authorities put his signature in the attendance register for the period he remained absent i.e. from 04.02.2014 to 06.02.2014 and for this indiscipline act of the petitioner, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mungeli issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 13.02.14 vide Annexure R-2/2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner always remaining unauthorized absent from his services and for his such act, the Chief Medical and health Officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.04.14 and only because of the above act of the petitioner, the contractual services of the petitioner was not extended by the respondent. The petitioner himself filed the copy of attendance register for the period from December, 7 2013 to February, 2014 and the petitioner has already been paid salary for the period on which he rendered his services. Learned counsel also submits that even the petitioner for the same grievance filed an application before the Labour Court, Bilaspur claiming salary for the period from 26.12.2013 to 03.09.2014 on 06.08.2015 and gave false declaration before the Court in Para 6 of the memo of writ petition suppressing the fact of filing the above issue before the Labour Court, while filing the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on 28.08.2015. On this ground alone the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable because it is settled law that for the same cause of action and same grievance, a person can't file two separate litigation and the above conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner did not approach the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. Thus, the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed on 05.08.2012 as District Training Coordinator on contractual basis by respondent No.2 and it is also not disputed that the petitioner had preferred writ petition being WP(S) No.5907/2014 and this Court, vide order dated 8 14.11.2014 disposed of the petition with direction to the petitioner to file detail representation before the respondent No.2, who in turn, shall pass appropriate order within further period of four weeks. The respondent No.2, in compliance of this Court’s order dated 14.11.2014, decided the representation of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P/1). 8. The main objection of the petitioner was that the respondent No.2 denied his salary for the work done and the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is illegal and unfair, but this Court finds from the documents (Annexure R-2/1) filed by the respondent No.2 that from 26.12.2014 to 25.01.2014, the petitioner remained present for 15 days and absent for 16 days. Further, from 26.01.2014 to 25.02.2014, the petitioner present for 27 days and remained absent for 04 days and his salary was accordingly calculated. The respondent No.2 filed copy of notice dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure R-2/2) and letter dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure R-2/3), which goes to show that the petitioner did not file his annual performance evaluation report. The respondent No.2 has also filed documents, which goes to show that payment was made by the respondent as per working days of the petitioner, and in compliance of this Court’s order dated 14.11.2024 passed in WP(S) No.5907/2014, respondent No.2 passed order dated 9 15.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) in detail mentioning the period in which the petitioner was absent. From the aforesaid documents filed by the respondent No.2, it is manifestly clear that the respondent No.2 paid all salary/arrears of petitioner for his working days and complied with the order of this Court in its letter and spirit. That apart, the respondent No.2 fairly submits that in order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P/1), it has been wrongly mentioned that the petitioner remained absent from 26.12.2013 to 25.01.2014 and further the period from 26.01.2014 to 25.02.2014 was not mentioned in the order, which was typographical error and for which the respondent No.2 tendered apology from the Court. In fact, from 26.12.2013 to 25.01.2014, the petitioner remained present for 15 days and absent for 16 days & from 26.01.2014 to 25.02.2014, the petitioner remained present for 27 days and absent for 04 days, for which the calculation of remuneration of the petitioner was made and paid. Further, respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner in para 6 of the petition suppressed the fact of filing of application and raising same issue before the Labour Court. The petitioner did not file his rejoinder and not rebutted this objection of respondent No.2 and also did not file any document which could show that he did not receive the payment for the period which he was 10 entitled, whereas the respondent No.2 filed all the documents which shows that the respondent No.2 duly paid remuneration of the petitioner according to his working days. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the documents filed by the respondent No.2, this Court does not find any illegality of infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) warranting any interference by this Court. 10. The petition being devoid of merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No Costs. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.02.12 16:37:30 +0530