Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1133 (RAJ)

Pawan Kumar v. Union Of India

2022-04-07

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 16/2/2022, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner qua his order of transfer dated 27/1/2022 from Rawatbhata to Pazhayakayal has been rejected. 2. By order dated 27/1/2022 the petitioner was transferred with immediate effect by indicating that as the transfer was in public interest, he would be entitled to transfer TA, joining time, joining time pay etc. as admissible. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 2138/2022, which came to be decided by order dated , 8/2/2022wherein, the order of transfer was not interfered with. However, the plea raised by the petitioner regarding family inconvenience faced by the petitioner on account of his wife serving at Rawatbhata and mother undergoing treatment under advice from Chandigarh, it was observed that the said aspect can be raised by the petitioner before the competent authority. 4. The petitioner made representation, which came to be rejected by order dated 16/2/2022 inter alia observing that the petitioner may explore the possibilities to avail required treatment for his parents at his present place of posting and he was advised to report at Pazhayakayal with immediate effect.Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner in a cursory manner without application of mind and that the submissions made by the petitioner have not been considered. 6. Submissions 6have been made that there is no reason for the respondents to transfer the petitioner to a far off place and that as the mother of the petitioner is undergoing treatment at Chandigarh, it was not justified for the respondents to transfer the petitioner to far south and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. An additional affidavit was also filed by the petitioner inter alia indicating that Pazhayakayal, where the petitioner has been transferred is not a district Headquarter as it is a part of District Tuticorin and that medical facilities are not available at the transferred place for mother of the petitioner, who is suffering from cancer and that there is no specialized centre for treatment of cancer nearby the transferred place. 8. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to indicate the status of medical facilities available around the place where the petitioner has been transferred. 9. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that Chandigarh is about 800 km. away from Rawatbhata, where the petitioner is presently stationed. Excellent medical facilities at not too far places from Pazhayakayal in cities like Madurai, Thiruvananathapuram and Chennai are available. The distance from Pazhayakayal to Madurai is only 164 km., which is one of the biggest cities in Tamilnadu and has excellent medical facilities having Apollo Hospitals, Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Vadamalayan Hospitals, where surgical oncology, chemotherapy and radiation therapy etc. are available. It has also been indicated that so far as the air transport facilities near Pazhayakayal is concerned, there is a domestic airport at Tuticorin, which is only 13 km. away from Pazhayakayal. The State capital of Kerala - Thiruvananthapuram is 198 kms. away from Pazhayakal and having several multi speciality hospitals. Besides the above, Chennai is at 620 km. from Pazhayakayal, which is a leading centre for cancer treatment and research and as such, the plea raised by the petitioner based on availability of treatment of his mother only at Chandigarh is baseless. It was indicated that in fact the petitioner prior to the date of transfer the petitioner did not avail any leave for the purpose of looking after his mother and/or travelling with her for treatment to Chandigarh etc. It was emphasized that the order of transfer should not be interfered only because the petitioner does not want to carry out the same. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The sheet anchor of petitioner's present petition has been the medical condition of his mother and her requirement to seek treatment from a specialist medical centre, which submissions were specifically noticed by this Court while issuing notice in the writ petition on 7/3/2022. 12. From the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, contents whereof have been noticed hereinbefore, it is more than apparent that the requisite medical facilities are available well within the reach from the place where the petitioner has been posted, rather same are nearer as compared to the distance between Rawatbhata and Chandigarh. 13. 12. From the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, contents whereof have been noticed hereinbefore, it is more than apparent that the requisite medical facilities are available well within the reach from the place where the petitioner has been posted, rather same are nearer as compared to the distance between Rawatbhata and Chandigarh. 13. In that view of the matter, the insistence of the petitioner to stay back at Rawatbhata only with a view to facilitate the treatment of his mother at Chandigarh cannot be countenanced. 14. Further submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to allege malafides in transferring the petitioner and the fact that post at other school at Rawatbhata was lying vacant, also apparently cannot be considered inasmuch as the earlier petition filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the transfer order already stood rejected and the present petition was entertained only on account of the fact that while deciding the representation of the petitioner, the respondents did not indicate the available facilities around Pazhayakal, the place where the petitioner has been transferred. 15. In view of the above over all fact situation, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.