Pradeep V. Desai vs The Deputy Commissioner, Karwar and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and respondents.

The petitioner is said to be a Surgeon with M.S. degree from Bombay University. He had a private practice at Karwar Nursing Home called �Sanjeevani Nursing Home''. He was a Consultant Surgeon in the Department of Onco Surgery at the Karnataka Cancer Therapy and Research Institute, Hubli, from 2004 and 2005. He was an Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery at S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Davangere from 2005-06. He had also worked as a Consultant General Surgeon at Rotary Charitable Trust, Sisi from 17.07.2006 to 15.03.2009.

It transpires that the Government of Karnataka had formulated a Scheme dated 02.04.2008 to provide special treatment to the needy village folk, and hence, he had submitted his application for appointment of Specialists at the Health Centres, at Taluk levels. The petitioner was keen to provide such service to the rural folk. Hence, he had submitted his application for appointment on contract basis. The respondent No. 1 by an order dated 28.05.2009 had approved the proposal of petitioner and by a further order dated 09.06.2009 he was appointed as a Specialist (General Surgeon) in the Taluka Hospital, Yellapur, for a period of one year, till a regular Specialist was posted in the vacancy. He was offered a reduction fee of Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per day for outpatient Department for atleast two days a week. Apart from the same, he was also made eligible to other remuneration, as prescribed in the order. The petitioner had commenced his work at C.H.C., Yellapur, from 18.06.2009 and as on the date of the petition he had conducted 47 major surgeries including kidney stone removal, excision of thyroid Nodule, excision of burns scar with contracture of elbow with skin grafting and several other minor injuries. There was no complaint from any quarter.

He was suddenly intimated by a letter dated 30.09.2009 directing him not to perform Gynac and Obstetric Surgeries, as also Orthopedic cases. He was issued with a further order dated 04.11.2009 terminating his service without providing any reasons. Further the petitioner had made a representation claiming the remuneration for services rendered, in respect of several surgeries that were performed by him. The same not having been considered, the petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to make payment at the earlier and also to engage his services.

The respondents have filed their statement of objections admitting that the petitioner was indeed working as a visiting Doctor Specialist and the existing vacancy of a Specialist in General Surgeon in Taluka hospital, for a period of one year or till such time that a Specialist was appointed to the said post. He was eligible to perform particular surgeries and not all kind of surgeries for which the petitioner had submitted his bills, and therefore, the same having been negated, cannot be made a grievance by the petitioner, as he was not eligible to perform those surgeries.

Insofar as the post of Gynecologist was concerned, Dr. Krishnabai was appointed and from the date of her appointment, the petitioner was directed not to perform any gynecological surgery. Inspite of which the petitioner claims to have performed several such surgeries and was even obstructing Dr. Krishnabai from doing her routine work and he had created problems for other Medical Officers and the staff of Yellapur hospital.

It was in this background that he had been told to discontinue his services. The arrangement with the petitioner was tentative and for a temporary period. There was no vested right in the petitioner to seek continuation of his services nor was he entitled to amounts that he has claimed in respect of surgeries which he was prohibited from performing.

It is in this vein that the State seeks to deny the petitioner''s claim that he had raised. However, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner had submitted yet another representation disputing the claim of the State that he had formed several surgeries, which he was not eligible to perform and he had furnished particulars of those surgeries for which he was due to be paid in terms of the contract of engagement. This has gone unanswered according to the petitioner, and therefore, he would insist that there be a direction to the respondents atleast to consider the pending representation and pay in his due. The copy of the same is not produced before this Court.

However, the learned counsel hands over a copy of the same, across the bar, for the perusal of the Court. It does appear that he had made a representation. However, it is seen that these copies that are handed across the bar are all prior to the filing of the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would insist that there are representations as well and that the petitioner could renew his representation furnishing all the particulars of the surgeries, which are a matter of record, and therefore, seeks that the petition be allowed with an appropriate direction to the respondents to consider his representation.

It is to be noticed that the petitioner, apparently, is a highly qualified Specialist whose services have been negated by the respondents and he had provided a timely and much needed service to the general public at the taluk level and which ought to be appreciated.

However, the fact that he is now before this Court seeking payment for his services is indeed an embarrassment for the petitioner himself as it is a noble service rendered, for which payment should be made without any question and that the State should raise a controversy, even is not fair. Therefore, if there is any substance in the representation of the petitioner, as regards payments being with held in respect of surgeries performed by him, the State would do well to consider the representation and the particulars furnished by the petitioner with due diligence and with expedition and to make appropriate payment, if the same is due to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a fresh representation, which the petitioner is directed to submit to the District Health Officer, Karwar, within seven days from today and the respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders and make payment if it is due within two months from the date of receipt of such a representation.

The petitions are disposed of.