RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
As per the averments made in this writ petition, petitioners were appointed as Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) on contract basis in the year 2006-07 under the RCH Scheme of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) of Government of India which was being run under the supervision of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Punjab (respondents).
It is the case of the petitioners that female candidates were also appointed as Multipurpose Health Workers (Female) along with the petitioners in the ratio of 1 male and 1 female, to provide necessary health services in the slum/rural areas under the aforesaid scheme. The petitioners were performing their duties satisfactorily in the slum/rural areas so as to provide necessary medical health services, especially to male patients pertaining to their male problems, which a female worker cannot provide. Suddenly, in the year 2008, the services of the Multipurpose Health Workers (Male), the petitioners-herein, were terminated in view of letter dated 23.4.2008 w.e.f 30.4.2008 on the ground that the Government of India has not agreed to the continuation of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) for slum areas any more under the said Scheme. It is the further case of the petitioners that Multipurpose Health Workers (Female) continued to work.
The petitioners, after termination of their services, filed CWP No. 8948 of 2012 alleging therein that the posts were still lying vacant and the schemes which were implemented in the larger public interest, were not abandoned. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.5.2012 by passing the following order:-
“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any views on merits of petitioners' entitlement, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the above-mentioned claim of the petitioners in accordance with their policy decision and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
It is not in dispute that in compliance of the aforesaid order, a speaking order dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) was passed by the respondent-authorities. The relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“According to above said orders, it is stated that Multipurpose Health Worker (male) were recruited on contract basis by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Vice Chairman at District level under RCH Scheme in the year 2007. According to the instructions issued vide letter dated 23.4.2008 by Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission, Punjab, Multipurpose Health Worker (male) (on contract) under RCH Scheme were relieved from duty on dated 30.4.2008 by concerned Civil Surgeons. It is stated here that R.C.H Scheme has been converted into National Rural Health Mission. Action was taken from Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission for re-employment of these employees who are relieved from duty. Now the four years has been elapsed to relieved these employees. No action can be taken by the department for-reemployment of these employees.
In view of above, according to the above orderes of the Hon'ble High Court, it is cleared that Multipurpose Health Worker (male) (on contract basis) who are relieved from duty on 30.4.2008 cannot be reemployed by this department. When any advertisement for fresh recruitment of Multipurpose Health Worker (male) will be given by the department. These Multipurpose Health Worker (male) can also apply for the same. If they will on merit, they will be selected as Multipurpose Health Worker (male). So, the claim of these petitioners are rejected.
Sd/-
Director Health Service (FW), Punjab.”
Challenging the aforesaid order (Annexure P-5), the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition stating that after termination of their contract, the petitioners have been rendered unemployed, whereas the posts are still lying vacant and due to non-availability of Male workers, the health services in slum areas are badly suffering. Moreover, the Multipurpose Health Workers (female) are still continuing. The petitioners, right from their date of relieving, till date, continuously made representations to consider their claim, but the respondents have failed to re-employ the petitioners and have non-suited them on the ground of delay, which is illegal. Thus, a prayer has been made to quash the aforesaid order (Annexure P-5) with a further prayer to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their re-employment for the post of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male).
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as documents placed on record.
Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed by the respondent-authorities (Punjab Government) under a project which was being run under a Scheme of National Rural Health Mission, Government of India for year 2006-07 and as per the said Scheme, petitioners continued in service and their services were terminated after 23.4.2008 Thereafter, Government of India has not agreed for their continuation in slum/rural areas and therefore, the decision of the respondents (Punjab Government) not to continue with the employment of the petitioners, cannot be faltered with. Further, the services of the petitioners who were working on contract basis, came to an end on expiry of their contractual period which was never reviewed.
The petitioners have failed to point out before this Court any right to continue on such posts. Though the petitioners have raised an argument with regard to their female counterparts continuing to work, however, there is nothing on record to show that they are still working. Not only this, a perusal of Annexure P-3 would show that the contractual period of Multipurpose Health Workers (Female) was extended upto 30.6.2008 only. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said period was further extended. Not only this, the RCH Scheme under which the petitioners were appointed has come to an end and thereafter, action was to be taken by NRHM for their re-employment, if any.
It has been rightly concluded that the respondent-authorities are not in a position to re-employ the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned order (Annexure P-5).
Dismissed.