STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusKAMLESH JAIN

A                        STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
                                    v.
                              KAMLESH JAIN

                               NOVEMBER 5, 1992

B                [LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND
                        N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950 :

C          Anic/es 32 and 226-f'ublic Interest Litigation-Writ Petition filed seek-
    ing relief for an ailing doctor, staying with brother-Maintainability of-High
    Coun granting relief-Validity of-State not expected to choose individuals for
    special treatment-Judicial process not to be allowed to be used for the
    satisfaction of individual whims-<Juidelines for entenainment of such claims
    laid down.
D
           A large number of doctors employed in the State Health Services of
    the appellant-State were leaving India for higher studies, after obtaining
    leave for a couple of years, and thereafter, they were neither returning to
    India, nor were sending any further applications for extension of leave.
    This was causing considerable hardship to the public. As this trend
E
    persisted, the state authorities wanted to take appropriate corrective
    steps. Since the absentee doctors had not informed the department of _
    their addresses, personal service of notice on such doctors could not be
    effected. A general notice was published and press communique was
    issued in newspapers in India and abroad calling upon them to offer their
F   explanations for remaining absent from service for more than five years,
    within the specified time and indicating that on their failure to do so, the
    services of 320 doctors would be terminated with the concurrence of the
    State Public Service Commission and the approval of the State Cabinet.
    Services of doctors were, accordingly, terminated.
G         The respondent tiled a Public Interest Litigation before the High
    Court stating that the particular doctor was unwell and was in need of
    financial help. The services of this doctor bad also been terminated along
    with others. The details as to how she was taken ill and admitted in a
    hospital outside the country and then brought back to India for further
H treatment in the State, were given.
                                          356
                     STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMLESH JAIN                           357

          The High Court directed the appellants to pay the post retirement          A
    benefits to the medical officer doctor concerned. Earlier the High Court
    bad also directed payment of Rs. 2,000 to the respondent writ petitioner
    as relief to the doctor concerned.

          Allowing the appeal of the State, this Court,
                                                                                     B
           HELD : 1.1. It is not known how the respondent-writ petitioner
    became so interested in the beneficiary, who was being taken care of in the
    hospital and receiving attention of eminent doctors, and who had atleast
    a brother with whom she was staying for sometime. The respondent-writ
    petitioner could not tell about the other family members and relations of        C
    the beneficiary or bow and why in this background the respondent chose
    the beneficiary for showering her benevolence in preference over the far
    more needy old and sick persons who are, unfortunately, in large number
    in the appellant-State. The judgment under challenge also does not indi-
    cate any reason. (360-B-D]
                                                                                     D
          1.2. Since there is no reason at all in the order under challenge or
    in the writ petition which may justify the relief granted in the present case,
    the writ petition should have been dismissed. [360-H; 361-A]

           1.3. There is also no reason to accede to the request made on behalf      E
    of the respondent that the cheque for Rs. 2000, mentioned in the first
    paragraph of the High Court's orders, drawn in the name of the
    beneficiary, may be directed to be drawn in the name of the respondent-
    writ petitioner for the beneficiary's lingers bad since become stiff and
    hence the cheque conld not be encasbed. There is no suggestion to the
    effect that the beneficiary bas no relation of her own, who can look after       F
.   her needs. (361-B]

          2. There is no doubt that the State should strive to promote the
    welfare of its people so that at least the bare necessities of life are met and
    the needy and the sick are properly looked after. This can be done only by
    adopting a welfare scheme in the interest of the general public; and since G
    the resources of the State are not unlimited, the State is not expected, in
    absence of relevant reasons, to choose an individual for special treatment
    at the cost of the others. Ordinarily, therefore, it is desirable for the State
    authorities to take up the individual cases coming to their notice and do
    their best in accordance with the policy decision of general application. H
    358                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   This will ensure equal treatment to all - of course in accordance with the
    individual needs. Unless all relevant materials are placed by an applicant.
    it will be onerous task for the Court to take upon itself to determine the
    extent of help a particular individual has to get. The circumstance that a
    particular 'person is smart enough to approach the Court or is so for-
    tunate to get somebody to do that on his or her behalf, cannot be a valid
B
    ground to divert the State funds to his or her advantage at the cost of
    corresponding disadvantage to others. A judicial process should not be
    allowed to be used for the satisfaction of an individual's whims, pious,
    though, they may apparently look. (360-E, F, GI

C           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4650 of
    1992.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1991 of the Patna High
    Court in C.W.J.C 6581 of 1990.

D           Ranjit Kumar for the Petitioners.

            Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         SHARMA, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Special
E
    Leave is granted.

          2. This appeal by the State of Bihar and its Officers is directed
    against the order of the High Court dated 18.2.91 passed on a Writ Petition
    claiming to have been filed as a Public Interest Litigation for certain reliefs
F   to be made available to a doctor who was earlier in the State service and
    whose services had been terminated in 1987.
                                                                                      ...
        3. The beneficiary of the impugned judgment Dr. Ms. Sandhya Das
  was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Bihar State Health Services in
G 1961 and worked as such till 1971. She left India for higher studies in 1971
  after obtaining leave for a period of two years. After the expiry of the leave
  period, she neither returned to India nor made any further application for
  extension of her leave. Nothing was heard from her thereafter. She was not
  the only one to do so. A large number of doctors employed in the Bihar
  Health Services were acting in similar manner, causing considerable
H hardship to the public. As this trend persisted, the State authorities could
          STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMLESH JAIN [SHARMA, J.]                    359

not ignore the problem and the relevant rules were examined, legal opinion A
was obtained and it was decided to take appropriate corrective measures.
The absentee doctors, presumably placed in more lucrative jobs, did not
care to inform the department of their addresses, and personal service of
notice on such doctors could not be effected. In the circumstances, acting
on the opinion of the Advocate General, general notice was published and
press communique was issued in newspapers in India and abroad calling
                                                                              B
upon them to offer their explanations for remaining absent from service
for more than five years (this period is mentioned in the Rules), within the
time indicated. Dr. Ms. Sandhya Das was also one of such doctors and was
called upon to join her duty in India by such a communique issued in 1982,
telling her that on her failing to do so, her services would be terminated in   c
accordance with the Service Code. Nothing was heard from her. The
matter of termination of services of such doctors was referred to Bihar
Public Service Commission, and the Commission gave its concurrence in
1986. Accordingly, the services of 320 doctors including that of Dr. Das
was terminated in 1987. This had the approval of the Bihar Cabinet.           D

      4. The Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed
in 1990 by one Ms. Kamlesh Jain as a Public Interest Litigation, stating that
Dr. Das was unwell and was in need of financial help. Some details as to
how Dr. Das was taken ill and admitted in a hospital in Glasgow and then
came back here for further treatment have been given. She was, it is stated,    E
staying with her brother for sometime on her return to India and eminent
doctors of Bihar who were consulted could not get her substantial relief
and ultimately she had to be admitted in the P.M.C.H. hospital of Bihar in
Patna. In this background the writ application was filed.
                                                                                F
      5. The High Court's judgment under appeal is very perfunctory. The
entire Order reads thus :-

             "18.2.91. Learned G.P.I. hands over a cheque of Rs.
         2000 drawn in the name of Dr. Sandhya Das, to Miss
         Kamlesh Jain, who had filed this writ application as public            G
         interest litigation on behalf of Dr. Sandhya Das. This has
         been accepted by Miss Kamlesh Jain. The Payment has
         been made in compliance with the order dated 18.1.91.

            We dispose of this writ application with a direction to             H
    360                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

            the respondents to pay the post retirement benefits to Dr.
            Sandhya Das within a period of three months from today.
            We make it clear that this order will not be construed to
            mean that D7. Sandhya Das accepts her date of retirement
            to be 21.7.1987. If so advised, she may agitate the matter
            through a fresh Writ application."
B
    We have not been able to discover as to how the writ petitioner became
    so interested in Dr. Das who was being taken care of in the P.M.C.H.
    hospital of Bihar and receiving attention of eminent doctors and who has
    atleast a brother with whom she was staying for sometime. The learned
C   Counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent before us, could not tell us
    about the other family members and relations of Dr. Das, or how and why
    in this background the writ petitioner Ms. Kamlesh Jain chose Dr. Das for
    showering her benevolence in preference over the far more needy old and
    sick persons who are, unfortunately, in large number in Bihar. The im-
D   pugned judgment also does not indicate any reason.


          6. There is no doubt that the State should strive to promote the
    welfa<e of its people so that at least the bare necessities of life are met and
                                  I
    the needy and the sick are properly looked after. This can be done only by
E   adopting a welfare scheme in the interest of the general public; and since
    the resources of the State are not unlimited, the State is not expected, in
    absence of relevant '1reasons, to choose an individual for special treatment
                         I
    at the cost of the others. Ordinarily, therefore, it is desirable for the State
    authorities to take up the individual cases coming to their notice and do
    their best in accordance with the policy decision of general application.
F   This will ensure equal treatmenl: to all - of course in accordance with the
    individual needs. Unless all relevant materials are placed by an applicant,
    it will be an onerous task for the Court to take upon itself to determine
    the extent of help a particular individual has to get. The circumstance that
    a particular person is smart enough to approach the Court or is so
G   fortunate to get somebody to do that on his or her behalf, cannot be a valid
    ground to divert the State funds to his or her advantage at the cost of
    corresponding disadvantage to others. A jud_icial process should not be
    allowed to be used for the satisfaclion of an individual's whims, pious,
    though, they may apparently look. Since we do not find any reason in the
H   impugned order or in the writ petition which may justify the relief granted
          STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMLESH JAIN [SHARMA, J.]                     361

in the present case, we are of the view that the writ petition should have A
been dismissed.

       7. The learned Counsel for the respondent made a grievance before
us that the cheque for Rs. 2000 mentioned in the first paragraph of the
High Court's orders has been drawn in the name of Dr. Das whose fingers
have become stiff and the money, therefore, could not be encashed. It was        B
suggested that a cheque may be directed to be drawn in the name of the
writ petitioner Ms. Kamlesh Jain. We do not see any reason for acceding
to this prayer as it is not suggested that Dr. Das has no relation of her own,
who can look after her needs.
                                                                                 c
     8. For the reasons indicated above the appeal is allowed, the im:
pugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition
(C.WJ.C. No. 6581/1990) filed in the High Court is dismissed. There will
be no order as to costs.

N.P.V.                                                       Appeal allowed.