Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 608 (JK)

Pinky Raina v. State & Ors.

2012-09-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the caveators. Caveat is discharged. 2. It appears that, vide Government order No. 1039-HME of 1988 dated 05.12.1988, the petitioner came to be transferred from SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar, to the Health Department, Jammu, and was directed to work in the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Secretariat Dispensary, Jammu. After the year 1989, the Respondent-State issued many orders of transfer of the petitioner from time to time and, by one of such orders, petitioner was repatriated to SKIMS, which was called in question by the petitioner by medium of a writ petition, bearing SWP No. 410/2002. Upon consideration, the said order came to be stayed and, this is how, the petitioner is continuing in the Civil Secretariat. Not only that, the petitioner has also filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2370/2011, in which the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been repatriated, has also been kept in abeyance. 3. Now, the petitioner has been transferred in the interest of administration to Government Lal Ded Hospital, Srinagar, along with the post in terms of Government Order No. 931-GAD of 2012 dated 04.09.2012, and she has questioned the same in this writ petition, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 4. It needs a mention here that the petitioner had been transferred from SKIMS to Civil Secretariat Dispensary by the Government and, now, the same authority has passed the impugned order requiring her services in Government Lal Ded Hospital, Srinagar. 5. From the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures appended thereto, it is revealed that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by medium of various writ petitions and the Court has passed directions from time to time for her continuation in the Civil Secretariat. It is seen that one of the writ petitions is still on the Board and in that writ petition also, the impugned order therein has been stayed and the ad interim direction passed therein is still in force. 6. Mr. Qayoom, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner submitted at the Bar that the petitioner has lost her lone son and she is in distress and, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be stayed. 7. 6. Mr. Qayoom, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner submitted at the Bar that the petitioner has lost her lone son and she is in distress and, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be stayed. 7. It needs to be kept in mind that the transfer of Government servants is an exigency of service and is made either in the interest of administration or public interest by the competent authority. The competent authorities are the best judge to decide which government servant has to be posted where. This Court, in its extra ordinary jurisdiction, would be loath to assume to itself the powers vested or conferred on the concerned/competent authorities and to direct that a particular person be posted at a particular station. A government servant does not have the choice, right or privilege to decide his/her place of posting. Consequently, the petitioner, being a government servant, cannot seek her posting at a place of her liking. Therefore, no right of the petitioner has been impinged upon, nor does she have a right to ask for continuance at a particular place of posting. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, coupled with the submissions made at the Bar and in view of the fact that the petitioner has lost her lone son due to cancer and is stated to be in distress, in the interests of justice, I deem it just and proper to dispose of both the writ petitions by directing the respondents to examine and consider the case of the petitioner and make a decision thereon within one month, which period shall begin from today. Till then operation of the order passed in SWP No. 2370/2011 shall remain in force and the impugned order passed in the writ petition at hand shall stay for one month from today. 8. In view of what has been said hereinabove, both the writ petitions shall stand disposed of. As a sequel, contempt petition does not survive. It shall stand settled.