Nazma Khatun vs Secretary Health Department and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Appellant was a Nurse in a Primary Health Center. She took leave and, after completion of the leave, wrote a letter dated 17th May, 1991, followed by another letter dated 18th June, 1991, seeking permission to join her post. On 19th June, 1991, she was asked to report at Primary Health Center, Chakrata. She did not join Primary Health Center, Chakrata. On 28th June, 1991, she was transferred from Primary Health Center, Dehradun, to Primary Health Center, Uttarkashi. She did not join Primary Health Center, Uttarkashi. According to the Appellant, this transfer order was directed to be not given effect to. Appellant went on corresponding. On 11th June, 2009, the records of the Appellant were returned by Chief Medical Officer, Uttarkashi, to the Director General, Medical Health.

In the writ petition, Appellant questioned the transfer order dated 28th June, 1991 and the action of the Chief Medical Officer, Uttarkashi, to forward the records of the Appellant to the Director General, Medical Health. These actions had no implication really in 2011, when the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that validity or sufficiency of a order passed on 28th June, 1991 could not be assailed in 2011. We are unable to take a divergent view than that.

Furthermore, from the prayers made in the writ petition, as set out in the judgment and order under appeal, it is clear that, at least since 28th June, 1991 and until the presentation of the writ petition in 2011, Petitioner had not worked. In the circumstances, question of a court, exercising discretionary power to issue a direction to permit the Appellant to work, did not arise. However, the Appellant was entitled to know her status vis-a-vis the work she was asked to discharge and, accordingly, we are of the view that a liberty should have been given to the Appellant to seek the same from the appropriate authority. We, accordingly, without interfering with the order under appeal, permit the Appellant to approach the appropriate authority under the Rules for the purpose of ascertaining her status vis-a-vis the work, in which she was engaged and, which work, she did not discharge, since at least from 17th May, 1991.

The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.