Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 185 (JHR)

Madhur Prasad Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2002-02-14

TAPEN SEN

body2002
Order Heard Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Azeemuddin, who states that he is J.C. to G.P. I. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he had filed specific details with regard to his illness in his representation as contained at Annexure-5/1 which appears to have been forwarded by the Joint Director, Labour, Employment & Training, Ranchi on 25.1.2002, the same has been rejected in a most mechanical manner vide Annexure-6 (at page 43 to the writ petition) without giving any reason and by a stroke of the pen, the authorities concerned have rejected the representation of the persons who have been transferred by reason of the impugned order including the representation of the petitioner. 3. In this case what touches the conscience of this Court is the nature of the illness of the petitioner. He has specifically stated that the petitioner suffered a brain haemorrhage which led to his being paralysed on the right portion some time in the month of February, 2000. He has also stated that after the aforesaid attack, he was physically found to be handicapped to the extent of 59%. The petitioner has also stated that he was on medical leave for about six months for the period September, 2000 to February, 2001. According to him, he had been admitted at Central Hospital of B.C.C.L. and after necessary treatment he was referred to S.SKM. Hospital, Calcutta or Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna or Christian Medical College, Vellore for further investigation. 4. The petitioner has also stated that he went to Vellore ultimately but due to exorbitant costs, he had to come back within a short period of fifteen days in February, 2001, whereafter according to him, he is continuing to be under the treatment of a Neurologist, namely, Dr. Mahapatra at Dhanbad. 5. The petitioner has also stated that he was examined by the Medical Board on 22.3.2001 and the said Board has also found him physically handicapped to the extent of 59%. 6. If the aforesaid statements made by the petitioner are really correct, then he is a person who certainly deserves sympathy. We are living in a welfare State where we are governed by the Constitution of India. 6. If the aforesaid statements made by the petitioner are really correct, then he is a person who certainly deserves sympathy. We are living in a welfare State where we are governed by the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution read as follows: "We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens; Justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation." 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid Preamble to the Constitution, it is clear that one of the touchstone and the foundation of the Constitution is that we have promised to overselves that we shall protect the dignity of an individual, it is now a well known concept of law that the right to live includes the right to live decently. There are far reaching judgments on this issue and some of them also have included aspect of human rights. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also laid down that transfer is an incidence of service and the employer, in the exigencies of work can transfer an employee wherever and whenever it wants. Had this case been fallen within the aforesaid formula, may be this Court would not have interfered. But on perusal of the pleadings it appears that a poor helpless person who is paralysed and suffering from brain haemorrhage is being "booted out" by the State from one place to another without even telling him why his illness or his physically handicapped condition was not a valid ground for consideration of his case before the respondents. 8. In that view of the matter, I direct the respondent no. 2 Director, Labour, Employment & Training, Ranchi to remain personally present in court alongwith the reports relating to the medical examinations of the petitioner on 20.2.2002. 9. Let this case appear at 10.30 A.M. at the top of the list and under the same heading on 20.2.2002. 10. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner, if he has not been able to join pursuant to the impugned order of transfer. 11. 9. Let this case appear at 10.30 A.M. at the top of the list and under the same heading on 20.2.2002. 10. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner, if he has not been able to join pursuant to the impugned order of transfer. 11. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Pradip Modi, learned G.P.I.