http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAMLESH JAIN

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1992

BENCH: [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

ACT: Constitution of India, 1950:      Articles 32  and  226-Public  Interest  Litigation-Writ Petition filed  seeking relief for an ailing doctor, staying with brother  Maintainability of-High Court 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-Guidelines for entertainment of such claims laid down.

HEADNOTE: 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 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 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. The  respondent  filed  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  had 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 treatment in the State, were given. The High  Court directed the appellants to pay the post retirement benefits to the medical officer doctor concerned. Earlier the High Court had 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, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

she was staying for sometime. The respondent-writ petitioner could not  tell about the other family members and relations of the  beneficiary or  how 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 indicate any reason. [360-B-D] 1.2. Since  there is  no reason  at all  in  the  order under     challenge or  in the  writ  petitioner  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 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  fingers had  since become stiff and  hence the  cheque could not be encashed. There is no suggestion  to the  effect that  the beneficiary  has  no relation of her own, who can look after 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 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.  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  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  to  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, G]

JUDGMENT:      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.      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 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 to be made  available to  a doctor who was earlier in the State service and whose services had been terminated in 1987.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    3. The  beneficiary of  the impugned  judgment Dr.  Ms. Sandhya Das  was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Bihar State Health  Services in 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 hardship to  the public.  As this trend persisted, the State authorities could  not ignore  the problem  and the relevant rules were  examined, legal  opinion 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  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  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.      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, 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.      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 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 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  Dr.      Sandhya Das  accepts  her  date  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    retirement to  be 21.7.1987.  If so      advised, she may agitate the matter      through a fresh writ application."      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 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  impugned judgment  also does  not  indicate  any reason.      6. 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 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.  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 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  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  judicial process  should not  be allowed to  be used  for the satisfaction of an individual’s whims, pious,  though, they may apparently look. Since we do not find  any reason  in the   impugned order or in the writ petition which may justify the relief granted in the present case,  we are  of the  view  that  the  writ petition should have 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 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.      8. For  the  reasons  indicated  above  the  appeal  is allowed, the  impugned judgment  of the  High Court  is  set aside and  the writ  petition (C.W.J.C. No. 6581/1990) filed in the High Court is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. N P V                                   Appeal allowed.