Rajasthan High Court
Raghuveer Singh Meena Son Of Shri ... vs Principal Secretary Department ... on 11 February, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1739/2021
Raghuveer Singh Meena Son Of Shri Sultan Singh Meena, Aged
About 57 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 8, Gomati Colony,
Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Secretary Department Of Medical And Health,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deputy Secretary To Government, Department Of Medical
And Health (Group-2) And Panchayati Raj (Medical)
Department Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Principal Medical Officer, Rajsamand
4. Director And Ex Officio, Dept Secretary Medical And
Health Services, ESI Scheme, Laxmi Nagar, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur.
5. Officer Incharge, ESI Dispensary No. 10, Jaipur, 2/3,
Surya Dev Marg, Sector 2, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
302017
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ilyas Khan
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
11/02/2021
The petitioner assails the order dated 31.12.2020 and the
order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was transferred from District Rajsamand to ESI Dispensary No.
10, Jaipur in pursuance of the order dated 31.12.2020
(Annexure-1). The petitioner joined at ESI Dispensary No. 10,
(2 of 3) [CW-1739/2021]
Jaipur. Learned counsel submits that subsequently the petitioner's
transfer order has been cancelled and submits that amendment in
the order of transfer could not have been made once the transfer
order has been complied with. The petitioner submits that since
the petitioner joined and was working upto 06.01.2020 transfer
could not have been made. Counsel for the petitioner submits that
Tribunal has not fairly appreciated the submissions.
I have considered the submissions.
This court finds that vide order dated 31.12.2020, the
petitioner was transferred from Rajsamand to ESI Dispensary No.
10, Jaipur, however, on the same date another order was passed
cancelling the earlier order and posting the petitioner at the same
place at Rajsamand. However the second order dated 31.12.2020
was not placed before the ESI Authority and the petitioner
proceeded to join in compliance of the earlier order dt.
31.12.2020. In this circumstances, it cannot be said that
subsequent order has been passed after joining of the petitioner.
Both the orders carry the same date and merely because the
petitioner concealed from the ESI Authorities about the
subsequent order dated 31.12.2020 cancellling his earlier transfer
order, no extra leverage can be given to the petitioner. The
Tribunal has thus rightly reached to the conclusion and has
dismissed the appeal.
The judgment cited by the petitioner i.e. Smt. Meenaxi
Sharma Vs. State and others reported in 2010 WLC (UC) 441 was
perused. This court finds that the facts of the said case are totally
different. The first order dated 25.09.2009 was complied with
wherein the concerned petitioner joined on 06.01.2009. The said
(3 of 3) [CW-1739/2021]
order dated 25.09.2009 was later on modified on 29.09.2009 and
he did not reach to phase where the person joined.
However in the present case, order dated 31.12.2020
transferring the petitioner from Ralsamand to ESI Dispensary No.
10, Jaipur was cancelled on the same date i.e. 31.12.2020 and the
petitioner came to know about it inspite of fact he joined in
pursuance of earlier order dated 31.12.2020.
In view thereof, no benefit can be given to petitioner.
The Writ petition is wholly misconceived and it is accordingly
dismissed.
All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
ashu /72
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
