Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 155 (JHR)

Harish Chandra Dhody v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-02-12

TAPEN SEN

body2002
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. In this writ application the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing Aniiexure-10 which is a letter dated 19.10.2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and where-under, the application/representation of the petitioner was rejected pursuant to an order passed in WP (L) No. 3895/2001. The petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing An-nexure-4 (insofar as it relates to him) which is an omnibus notification dated 29.6.2001. whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been sought to be transferred from Kokar, Ranchi to Adityapur at Jamshedpur. The petitioner has also made a prayer for a direction upon the respondents (Respondent No. 3 in particular) to strictly follow Annexure 3 i.e. the Circular dated 12.5.2001 and also another Circular dated 25.5.2001 issued by the respondent No. 3. 2. According to petitioner, he joined as tutor in the Nalanda Medical College & Hospital, at Patna on 18.1.1978. thereafter he was transferred and posted at several places, the last of which being E.S.I. Dispensary at Kokar, Ranchi where he joined on 4.7.1996. According to petitioner, he has been posted in that capacity and at that place since then. 3. According to petitioner he will be superannuating on and from 30th June, 2004 and he is presently on deputation under the department of Labour, Employment & Training, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The petitioner also states that in the matter of irregularities committed in arbitrary postings and transfers a writ petition was filed by a doctor, namely, Dr. Ram Prakash Kushwaha. CWJC No. 4036/99. In the said writ application the State Government gave an undertaking that officers who had been on their posting for more than ten years would be transferred in the month of July, 2000 and officers who had been on their posting for more than eight years would be transferred during the month of August, 2000 and those who has been on their posting for more than six years would be transferred during September, 2000. 4. However, it was stated that by the time August came the Court was intimated that the exercise could not be undertaken in totality. Consequently the Court permitted the scheme to be modified to the extent that those who had been on their posting for more than ten and eight years, their transfer orders would be passed during August 2000. 4. However, it was stated that by the time August came the Court was intimated that the exercise could not be undertaken in totality. Consequently the Court permitted the scheme to be modified to the extent that those who had been on their posting for more than ten and eight years, their transfer orders would be passed during August 2000. The said writ application was disposed of on 16.10.2000 by Annexure-1 appended to this writ application. 5. The petitioner states that a writ petition of similar nature was also filed after creation of the State of Jharkhand before this Court vide CWJC No. 844/2001. According to petitioner in that case a counter affidavit had been filed giving an undertaking that the Government shall transfer those doctors/medical officers of all cadres posted in one district for more than 8/10 years. According to petitioner, in view of the said categorical statement the writ petition was disposed of accordingly on 8.5.2001. A photocopy of the order dated 8.5.2001 passed in CWJC No. 844/2001 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, according to petitioner. respondent No. 2 issued a Circular on or about 12.5.2001 which appears to be a follow up action taken pursuant to the undertakings given in the aforesaid writ applications. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite thereof the execution of the undertakings were not made in their totality and on the contrary on 29.6.2001 (Annexure-4) 25 medical officers who had been deputed in the Labour Department Govt. of Jharkhand were sought to be transferred and the petitioner was included in the said notification vide SI. No. 4 and he was sought to be transferred to the ESI Hospital. Adityapur, Jamshedpur as a Superintendent from the post of Insurance Medical Officer. ESI Dispensary, Kokar, Ranchi. The grievance of the petitioner is that this notification is not a proper followup of the undertakings inasmuch as the doctor included at SI. No. 5 (Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad) Insurance Medical Officer, Kokar, Ranchi has been transferred to the ESI, Hospital. Nam-kum, at Ranchi. Similarly the doctor mentioned at SI. No. 22 has also been transferred from Ranchi to Namkum. The aforesaid doctors, namely, Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad and Dr. Tripurari have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to the writ application. 7. No. 5 (Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad) Insurance Medical Officer, Kokar, Ranchi has been transferred to the ESI, Hospital. Nam-kum, at Ranchi. Similarly the doctor mentioned at SI. No. 22 has also been transferred from Ranchi to Namkum. The aforesaid doctors, namely, Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad and Dr. Tripurari have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to the writ application. 7. According to petitioner he will be superannuating in 2004 and he has undergone a bye-pass surgery in the year 1988 and therefore, he is entitled to a compassionate consideration. He also states that he filed a representation on or about 18.7.2001 but that representation was rejected by order dated 13.8.2001 as contained at Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 8. Upon perusal of the contents of the writ application it. appears that the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP (S) No. 3895/ 2001. In the said writ application he had challenged the same impugned notification i.e. the notification dated 29.6.2001 which is contained at Annexure 4 to the instant writ application. It would be relevant to notice that by order dated 23.8.2001 an Honble single Judge disposed of the writ petition after holding that this Court was not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer dated 29.6.2001. the same being administrative in nature. However, the petitioner was given liberty to file a representation and in relation to continuance of other Doctors at one place for a long period, the said Honble single judge held that no specific finding can be given as they were not party-respondents before this Court. Consequently the Honble single judge gave liberty to the petitioner to bring this matter to the notice of the Secretary, Department of Health. Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. A photocopy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition, WP (S) No. 3895/2001. Subsequently, the said order was modified and in place of Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Jharkhand. it was ordered that the same should be read as Secretary. Department of Labour, Employment and Training. Govt. of Jharkhand. The modified order is Annexure-8/A to the writ petition. 9. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation vide Annexure 9 wherein he specifically gave glaring example of doctors who had been posted in one place for more than ten years. In the said representation he requested the Secretary. Department of Labour, Employment and Training. Govt. of Jharkhand. The modified order is Annexure-8/A to the writ petition. 9. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation vide Annexure 9 wherein he specifically gave glaring example of doctors who had been posted in one place for more than ten years. In the said representation he requested the Secretary. Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider all the points including the point relating to his ailment and take a positive and objective decision and to allow him to remain at Ranchi. That representation was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2001 as contained at Annexure 10 to the writ application. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order and also the order of transfer dated 29.6.2001 (Annexures 10 and 4 respectively) the writ petitioner has again approached this Court through the instant writ application. 11. The prayer of the petitioner in relation to quashing of Annexure 4 i.e. the notification transferring the petitioner to Adityapur at Jamshedpur is rejected for the simple reason that in the earlier writ application, WP (S) No. 3895/2001, an Honble single Judge of this Court by his order dated 23.8.2001 (Annexure 8) was not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer dated 29.6.2001, the same being administrative in nature. Additionally when this writ application was filed on 29.11.2001 the same Honble Single Judge while issuing notices to the respondent Nos. 5 to 11 to show cause as to why they be not transferred having continued for more than ten years in one place, also held that so far as the prayer of the petitioner against his transfer order was concerned, the same was rejected. Thus, in the earlier writ application le, WP (S) No. 3895/2001 and also in this writ application i.e. WP (S) No. 5763/2001 this Court has already rejected the prayer of the petitioner against his order of transfer. 12. Consequently no relief can be granted to the petitioner and insofar as his order of transfer to Adityapur, Jamshedpur is concerned as contained in the omnibus notification dated 29.6.2001 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). 13. However, so far as other grievance of the petitioner is concerned i.e. the respondents having adopted a discriminatory attitude in relation to some other doctors in the manner stated above. 13. However, so far as other grievance of the petitioner is concerned i.e. the respondents having adopted a discriminatory attitude in relation to some other doctors in the manner stated above. It will be necessary to mention that if they have taken recourse to any such discrimination then the same may amount to disregarding their own categorical statement made in para 11 of the counter affidavit which was filed by the State in a PIL. i.e. CWJC No. 844/2001 which was disposed of on 8.5.2001 on the basis of the said categorical statement. The writ petitioner had also drawn the attention of the Secretary. Labour. Employment and Training. Govt. of Jharkhand about the aforesaid glaring instances in relation to such doctors. Instead of explaining the situation the Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Govt. of Jharkhand by his letter dated 19.10.2001 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner without assigning any reason. 14. In this view of the matter and for the reasons stated above, while dismissing the writ petition insofar as the prayer of the petitioner against his order of transfer is concerned, this Court feels it proper to refer the other part to the Honble Division Bench so that the respondents may be able to explain as to why they have not given effect to their undertaking/categorical statement made earlier.