Delhi High Court
A Mumla Bibi vs Uoi & Ors. on 25 July, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 25th July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 4612/2011
A MUMLA BIBI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mohan Kumar, Mr.Rohit Pratap,
Ms.Rashmi Singh, Mr.R.D.Tyagi and
Ms.Sangeeta, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar and
Mr.Asit Tiwari, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The petitioner is a Nursing Officer (Lt.Col.) in the
Military Nursing Service of the Indian Army. Put in tabular
form, location where petitioner served and the period is as
under:-
Sr. Unit From To date Location Div/Area/Comm
date and
No.
1. Military Dec 85 Feb 86 Jalandher Western
Hospital (Punjab) Command
2. Command Feb 86 Feb 88 Bangalore Southern
Hospital Command
3. 184 MH Feb 88 Aug 90 Suratgarh Western
Command
(Raj)
4. Military Aug 90 Nov 92 Wellington Southern
Hospital Command
5. Military Nov 92 Nov 95 Bareilly Central
Hospital Command
6. Military Nov 95 Aug 98 Avadi Southern
Hospital Command
7. 5 Airforce Aug 98 Dec 01 Jorhat Eastern
Hospital (Assam) Command
8. Military Dec 01 May 05 Ambala Western
Hospital Command
9. 153 May 05 Aug 07 Leh/High Northern
General Altitude Command
Hospital Field Area
10. Military Aug 07 Till Meerut Central
Hospital date Command
2. It is pleaded by the petitioner that in the year 2005-
07, posted at a high altitude i.e. Leh, due to extreme cold
weather petitioner developed 'hypomania' and as a result
thereof was put in low medical category which required her
not to be posted in a high altitude area or an insurgency
troubled area.
3. Working at the Military Hospital Meerut, petitioner
claims that she has been wrong inasmuch as the impugned
order dated 25.5.2011, which we note is a routine transfer
posting order pertaining to 54 officers, requires petitioner to
report for duty at the Military Hospital Guwhati.
4. Petitioner claims a two-fold equity in her favour.
Firstly, being in low medical category due to having developed
hypomania and secondly her necessity to look after her bed
ridden mother aged 80 years and a young daughter whom
petitioner claims having adopted in the year 2004.
5. As per the petitioner she would attain the age of
superannuation on 30.4.2013 and as per the transfer policy
would be entitled to a last leg transfer posting at station of her
choice in the last year of her service.
6. In other words, petitioner claims that by April 2012
she would be in a position to enforce a right to be posted at a
station of her choice and thus urges that it would be useless to
make her work in Guwhati for less than 9 months.
7. In the synopsis the petitioner has made a reference
to her entitlement to seek pre-mature retirement and in
respect whereof we do not find any averments in the writ
petition except for a vague reference that upon her seeking
pre-mature retirement, in vengeance and vendetta, the
impugned order was issued.
8. In the counter affidavit filed it is pleaded that
though Guwhati is a counter insurgency operational area, but
is pleaded that currently the place is peaceful. Admitting that
the petitioner had developed hypomania, it is stated that the
petitioner did not develop the same at Leh evidenced by the
fact that this was detected when she was serving at Meerut. It
is pleaded that nursing officers are given 3 choice stations as
per their choice and the petitioner exercised the same when
she voluntarily sought to be transferred at CH Bangalore, MH
Wellington and MH Avadi. It is pleaded that the petitioner has
completed 3 tenures in the Southern Command and the
Western Command but only one each in the Eastern, Northern
and Central Command and this is the reason why she had to
be posted in other Eastern or the Central Command for the
reason she was stationed in Meerut under the Northern
Command. As regards the date when petitioner would
superannuate it is pleaded that the petitioner would
superannuate on 30.4.2014 and not 30.4.2013 and thus the
argument of the petitioner that after 9 months she would have
a right to seek last leg transfer posting is negated. On the
issue of petitioner seeking voluntary retirement it is stated
that the application being found to be wanting and not
containing the requisite information as was required to be
furnished, it is pleaded that the same was returned and never
re-submitted by the petitioner.
9. These are rival versions on which the matter needs
to be settled between the parties.
10. The plea of mala fide raised by the petitioner is
without any basis as we do not find any connection between
the transfer order and the request made by the petitioner to
be voluntarily discharged from service. As highlighted by us
the transfer posting order is issued in routine and pertains to
54 officers. The transfer posting order is not singularly
directed against the petitioner. That the petitioner has worked
3 times in the Southern and Western Command and only once
in the Eastern, Northern and Central Command is a fact of
relevance inasmuch as all officers, who are obliged to serve on
all-India basis, must, as far as possible, serve equally in all the
regions in India.
11. Whether petitioner became a patient of hypomania
while serving at Leh or at Meerut is irrelevant for the reason
Guwhati is not a high altitude city and thus it does not matter
whether the petitioner suffers from hypomania or the place
where she contacted the same. Whether the petitioner serves
in Meerut or at Guwhati, with reference to her being a patient
of hypomania, would be irrelevant.
12. It is no doubt true that the city of Assam is troubled
by insurgency but the city of Guwhati is fairly safe. That apart,
the petitioner has to serve at the Military Hospital where
residential unit lines are available within the campus itself.
The campus and the hospital is properly secured by Army
Officers and thus the life and limb of the petitioner is safe.
That apart, even if there are some dangers, somebody has to
serve at Guwhati. This would be the exigency of service when
a person joins a service which has an all-India transfer liability.
13. As regards the issue of voluntary retirement sought
by the petitioner, we find that the application submitted by the
petitioner was found to be wanting and deficient. It was
returned to the petitioner informing her so. She has not re-
submitted the application.
14. Law pertaining to transfer/posting requires minimal
interference from the Court and sympathies are no grounds to
interfere with the executive decision to transfer a particular
employee at a particular place. It is for the executive to
manage and run its affairs.
15. We dismiss the writ petition but refrain from
imposing any costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R.MIDHA, J.
JULY 25, 2011
mm
