Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1201 (JHR)

Bhola Ram Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-11

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER : 1. Challenging order dated 10.06.2013 whereby the petitioner was transferred, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as Cook on 21.08.1989 and he was posted at Infectious Diseases Hospital, East Jail Road, Ranchi. By order dated 10.06.2013 the petitioner has been transferred from Infectious Diseases Hospital, Ranchi to the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 stating as under :- 11. “That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner has been transferred by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi vide order no. 1912 dated 10.06.2013 from Infectious Disease Hospital, Ranchi to the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi in public interest and for administrative reason as the Cook, namely Sri Janeshwar Tiwary, posted in the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi was due to retire with effect from 30.06.2012 (he has since retired) as evident from memo no. 513 dated 31.05.2013. It is further most humbly stated and submitted that in Infectious Disease Hospital, Ranchi there is no provision for providing food/meal to the indoor patients. The number of indoor patient in Sadar Hospital is around 10,000 to 12,000 per year whereas the number of patient in Infectious Disease Hospital, Ranchi is 50 to 60 (approximately) per year. The requirement of cook is much more in Sadar Hospital than at Infectious Disease Hospital, Ranchi. 13. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the Sadar Hospital and Infectious Disease Hospital both are located at Ranchi within a distance of 100 yards and as such no dislocation of family setup is involved in obeying the transfer order under reference. 15. That is it most humbly stated and submitted that the transfer is an incidence of public service. It is further most humbly submitted that the petitioner has not been victimized but it has been made for the administrative reasons and in the public interest and the petitioner is expected to accept it with good grace. It is further most humbly stated and submitted that the present transfer order does not suffer from the vice of malafide and arbitrariness and is not a breach of any mandatory rule and has been ordered by the competent authority.” 4. It is further most humbly stated and submitted that the present transfer order does not suffer from the vice of malafide and arbitrariness and is not a breach of any mandatory rule and has been ordered by the competent authority.” 4. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit bringing on record a circular dated 25.04.1984 and an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3978 of 2013. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, against the circular which provides that in no case transfer of a Class-IV employee would be made, the petitioner has been transferred by impugned order dated 10.06.2013. He has further submitted that, in the writ petition filed by an identically situated person namely, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, this Court by order dated 02.09.2013 interfered with the matter of transfer and therefore, the present writ petition also requires interference. 7. As against the above, Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is well settled that an employee does not have a right to a post and in the matter of transfers, the Writ Court would be slow to interfere in the matter. 8. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that in the impugned order dated 10.06.2013 it has been specifically stated that since the cook who was employed at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi would be retiring on 30.06.2013, the petitioner has been transferred from the Infectious Diseases Hospital, Ranchi to the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. I do not find any illegality in the order of transfer dated 10.06.2013. Adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on a complaint made by respondent no. 4 in which false and frivolous allegations have been made against the petitioner, the order of transfer has been made and therefore, the writ petition is fit to be allowed, I find that in the transfer order dated 10.06.2013 no such ground has been taken for transferring the petitioner to the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. The conduct of the petitioner has only been noticed. The conduct of the petitioner has only been noticed. I further find that the order of transfer has been made as a temporary arrangement and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court what prejudice has been caused to him when even after transfer he would remain in the same city i.e. Ranchi. By order dated 10.06.2013 the petitioner has been transferred from one hospital to another hospital at Ranchi itself. Looking at the order passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 3978 of 2013, I find that in the said case there were specific charges levelled against the writ petitioner for which no proof was produced by the respondent-State however, in the present case from the impugned order dated 10.06.2013 I find that the order of transfer has been made in the exigencies of the situation and that too as a temporary arrangement. 9. In view of the aforesaid this writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.