Madho Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner claims to have served in remote areas for at least 24 years, of his entire 31 years of service, so far. He was posted to Almora in August, 2017 which, according to Sri Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, is also a remote area. The petitioner submitted representations on 18.11.2017 and 27.01.2018 seeking his transfer to an accessible area as he had served, for a substantial part of his career of more than 24 years, in remote areas. It is his claim that, acceding to such a request, he was attached to the B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital (which is an accessible area) on 27.02.2019. However, by the order impugned in this writ petition dated 09.09.2019, the orders of attachment of all employees in the State were cancelled resulting in the petitioner now being required to go back and join duty at Almora. The petitioner claims to have made a representation on 13.09.2019 seeking his retention at Nainital, since he had worked for more than 24 years in remote areas. Questioning the proceedings dated 09.09.2019, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that there are vacant posts at Bhawali, Bheemtal and Haldwani in Nainital district.

A bare reading of the proceedings dated 09.09.2019 would show that attachment of employees in different cadres was cancelled with immediate effect pursuant to the directions issued by the Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand Government; and the salary of employees, for the month of October, 2019, would only be drawn / disbursed after they assume charge / join service in their original place of posting. The proceedings dated 09.09.2019 makes it clear that, in case any hospital / office requires attachment of an employee, the Controlling Officer of every district shall send a reasoned report, and its specific recommendations, through a special messenger along with the list upto 25.09.2019 to the Director General. The petitioner claims that the Controlling Officer of the district had, in fact, recommended his case for attachment.

Sri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would submit that an attachment order is passed, attaching an employee to a post in another place, though he continues to draw his salary from the place where he was originally posted; and, since these orders of attachments were found to have been used as a ruse by doctors posted in remote areas, to avoid working in such areas, by seeking attachment in accessible areas, it was decided to dispense with this requirement.

The petitioner has been posted to Almora in August, 2017. He continues to draw his salary from his unit at Almora, ever since then till date, despite his attachment to the Government Hospital at Nainital.

The impugned order dated 09.09.2019 is not petitioner specific, but is a general order applicable to all employees under attachment. We see no reason to interdict the said order, or to make an exception in the case of the petitioner.

If, as is now claimed before us, the petitioner has been working in remote areas for more than 24 years, of his entire 31 years of service, he may be justified in seeking transfer to an accessible area. Since these are all matters for the second respondent to consider, and as the petitioner claims to have made a representation to him on 13.09.2019, suffice it to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request, and pass appropriate orders on his representation dated 13.09.2019, in accordance with law with utmost expedition and, in any event, within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that we have not interfered with the impugned order dated 09.09.2019; and, pending consideration of his representation, the petitioner shall comply with the said order.

It is not for this Court to direct the respondent authorities to post the petitioner at a particular place or at Bhawali, Bheemtal and Haldwani in Nainital district where he claims that vacant post are available. Suffice it to direct the respondent-authority to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.