High CourtsDivision Bench

Dr. Narendra Singh Tomar vs State of Uttarakhand and others.

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 July 2017 · Citation: (2017) 07 UK CK 0002

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.M. Joseph, Alok Singh
CASE NUMBER
278 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 326 words
1.

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of transfer, by which he has been transferred from Dehradun to Tehri Garhwal. Petitioner also challenges the consequential order, whereby he was informed about his transfer from Dehradun to Tehri Garhwal. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to respondents to not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Senior Anesthetist in the hospital at Dehradun.

2.

Petitioner claims to be suffering from a medical condition, which he developed out of severe head injuries caused in an accident. It is described as "worst head injury". The patient of pontinie hemorrhage is always under medication as the bleeding could occur any time if the patient lives in hilly area increasing his blood pressure. Petitioner has also referred the transfer order dated 28.08.2015, whereby he was transferred to District Hospital, Pauri Garhwal, but according to him given his serious health problems, he was transferred back to Dehradun.

3.

No doubt, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having a medical problem. There is no case of mala fide or violation of any statute.

4.

In the circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to represent his grievance before the first respondent and directing the first respondent to consider and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

If the petitioner represents his grievance within a period of three days from today before the first respondent, the first respondent will consider and take a decision on the same in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. We leave it open to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if need arises, challenging the impugned orders. We leave open all the contentions of the petitioner.

5.

Let certified copy of this judgment be issued today itself.