Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neetu Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry ... on 8 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4074 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Neetu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Medical And Health Services U.P. Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C. Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri J. K. Chakravarti, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Asthana, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order of transfer dated 25.5.2022 passed by Chief Medical Officer, District Ayodhya thereby petitioner's transfer from Community Health Centre, Masaudha, District Ayodhya to Sub Centre, Puhupi of the Community Health Centre, Bikapur has been affirmed.The distance between the two places is approximately 30 kilometers. The said order was earlier challenged before this Court by filing writ A No.3607 of 2022 which was decided vide judgment and order dated 31.5.2022 whereby it was provided that Chief Medical Officer, Ayodhya shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and till the date of decision of the representation the transfer of the petitioner was stayed. Chief Medical Officer, Ayodhya considered the representation of the petitioner and passed order on 10.6.2022 which has been assailed by means of the present writ petition.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 10.6.2022 passed by Chief Medical Officer, Ayodhya is illegal and arbitrary in as much as she has been transferred because she had made a complaint of one employee who was also posted in the same centre and due to that complaint she has been transferred. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a widow and has two children to look after.
4. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and states that the grievances of the petitioner was adequately considered by Chief Medical Officer, Ayodhya by passing a reasoned and speaking order on her representation. He has further submitted that as regards petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment the matter has been referred to Vishakha Committee. He further submits that both the employees i.e. Mr. Diwakar Pandey as well as the petitioner have been transferred outside the unit. He submits that this was done on administrative exigencies and on the complaint of the petitioner regarding sexual harassment. As such, no malafide is found in the order of the transfer and is not liable to be interfered with. It is noticed that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the Chief Medical Officer which is on record. Since both the employees have been transferred to different units, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been singled out or she has been discriminated or the there is malafide or any leniency has been shown to the other side, so as to interfere with the order of transfer.
5. Needless to say that the transfer is an exigency of service and the petitioner is liable to transferred from one place to another as has been held in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose And Others vs State Of Bihar And Others decided on 19 November, 1990 reported in AIR 1991 SC 532.
5. In light of the above, I do not find any ground for interference in the present matter and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
