Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 07.01.202 vs State Of H.P on 7 January, 2021
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 5722 of 2020
Date of decision: 07.01.2021
_______________________________________________________
Dr. Pankaj Pathania .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
__________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocte with Mr.
A.K. Sharma, Advocate, through
Video Conferencing.
For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional
Advocate General, through Video
Conferencing.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is
working as Medical Officer (contract basis), has challenged the
transfer order dated 28.11.2020, (Annexure P-2), hereinafter
referred to as 'the impugned order', whereby the petitioner has
been transferred from Primary Health Centre Bhota, District
Hamirpur to Primary Health Centre, Swarghat, District Bilaspur.
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on
.
contract basis as Medical Officer and vide impugned order
(Annexure P-2), he has been transferred from Primary Health
Centre Bhota, District Hamirpur to Primary Health Centre,
Swarghat, District Bilaspur.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
transfer of the petitioner has been effected in violation of the terms
and conditions of the Agreement dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P-1),
which was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-
State. He further submits that as per Clause 13 of the Agreement,
the offer of appointment on contract basis is specifically valid for
the station of posting of the petitioner shown in his appointment
letter and he shall not be transferable to any station up to a period
of five years from the date of joining in the event of extension of
contractual period on year to year basis. He further submits that
the transfer policy of the State Government is not applicable to the
petitioner as he has been appointed on contract basis. He further
submits that even the order dated 09.11.2020, passed in CWPIL
No. 4/2020, is not applicable to the petitioner, wherein directions
were given to the State Government to take immediate steps to
rationalize the staffing pattern in the PHCs as per the 2016
Guidelines and after such rationalization, if some staff
is found surplus/left, then they should be adjusted/posted in the
.
CHCs, as he was appointed on contract basis. He further submits
that vide impugned transfer order (Annmexure P-2), 67 persons
have been transferred, out of which, the transfers of three persons
were cancelled, which shows that the State Government is
favourable to some persons. He prays that the impugned transfer
order may be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing
on behalf of the respondent submits that the transfer of the
petitioner has been effected in compliance to the directions
contained in the order dated 09.11.2020, passed in CWPIL No.
4/2020, wherein directions were given to the State Government to
take immediate steps to rationalize the staffing pattern in the PHCs
as per the 2016 Guidelines and after such rationalization, if some
staff is found surplus/left, then they should be adjusted/posted in
the CHCs.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the entire record carefully.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has
been appointed as Medical Officer on contract basis. No doubt, as
per Clause 13 of the Agreement (Annexure P-1), the contract of the
petitioner has to be renewed year to year basis and the petitioner
was not required to be transferred to any station up to a period of
.
five years from the date of joining in the event of extension of
contractual period on year to year basis. This Clause is mandatory
in general interest, but the same is not mandatory in particular
interest, especially when there is covid situation in the entire
country. The transfer of the petitioner has been effected in covid
situation in compliance to the directions contained in the order
dated 09.11.2020, passed in CWPIL No. 4/2020, wherein
directions were given to the State Government that if some staff is
found surplus/left, then they should be adjusted/posted in the
CHCs. Thus, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the
respondent-State in compliance to the order passed by this Court.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
State Government is favouring some person, does not find force as
the transfer orders of some persons have been modified, who have
approached the respondent in extreme circumstances.
7. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to
dispose of this writ petition, by directing the petitioner to join at the
transferred station.
8. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, as
.
indicated hereinabove alongwith pending application(s), if any.
(L. Narayana Swamy)
Chief Justice.
January 7, 2021 (Ravi Malimath)
(hemlata) Judge.
