Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Dileep Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Pooran ... vs Union Of India (2023:Rj-Jp:41014-Db) on 21 December, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2023:RJ-JP:41014-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20396/2023
Dr. Dileep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pooran Mal Sharma, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o D-4, Esic Mode-1 Hospital Campus, Hatwara
Road, Jaipur.presently Working As Specialist Grade-II Senior
Scale (Microbiology), Esic Model Hospital, Laxmi Nagar, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Employee I.d. 168695)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Ministry Of Labour And Employment
Through Its Director General, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Head Quarters, Panchedeep Bhawan, Cig
Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
2. Medical Superintendent, Esic Model Hospital, Laxmi
Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
21/12/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
of the order dated 20.05.2023, whereby the petitioner has been
transferred from Jaipur to Gurugram and order dated 14.12.2023
(Annex.12) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur
Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application
filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The petitioner, a doctor, who is working as Specialist Gr.-II,
Senior Scale (Microbiology), ESIC Model Hospital, Laxmi Nagar,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur, was subjected to transfer by order dated
20.05.2023 to Gurugram. The petitioner approached the
respondents, inter-alia, indicating his family circumstances
(Downloaded on 22/12/2023 at 08:58:24 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:41014-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-20396/2023]
regarding his brother suffering from Cancer, father being of
advanced age and his minor children studying in school and
requested that he may not be transferred / not be transferred in
the mid-session. The said representation made by the petitioner
was rejected by the committee.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Original Application
before the Tribunal.
4. The Original Application was contested by the respondents.
5. By order dated 14.12.2023, the Tribunal, referring to the
various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rejected the
Original Application filed by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner, inasmuch as, in identical circumstances, wherein the
applications were filed by similarly placed doctors i.e. based on
their children studying in school and transfer having been effected
in mid-session, those applications were allowed by the same
Judicial Member sitting singly. However, while passing the order
impugned while sitting with the Administrative Member, the
petition has been dismissed.
7. Submissions have been made that the Tribunal was not
justified in passing the order different from what was passed in
the case of similarly placed doctors and on that count alone, the
order impugned deserves to be set-aside.
8. Submissions were made that though the policy of the
respondents clearly provides the transfers to take place before the
month of March, presently, the same have taken place in the
month of May and the representation has been decided in the
(Downloaded on 22/12/2023 at 08:58:24 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:41014-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-20396/2023]
month of November, resulted in, studies of the children getting
disturbed and therefore, the action of the respondents in
transferring the petitioner in mid-session is not justified.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support
the order impugned, however, it is not denied that in case of
similarly placed doctors, the Tribunal had granted relief regarding
relieving till the end of the session.
10. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
11. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding passing of the orders by the Tribunal in similar
circumstances and denying the relief to the petitioner appears to
be justified. The orders (Annexures-13 & 14), whereby four orders
have been annexed by the petitioner, the Single Judicial Member
of the Tribunal has directed as under :-
"4. After going through the pleadings in the O.A. and
documents produced by learned counsel for the respondents
before this court, I am of the opinion that relieving employees
in mid-session of the academic year will disturb the education
of their children. The academic session of their children will
complete in March, 2024, therefore, respondents are directed
not to relieve the applicant before March, 2024 purely in the
interest of education of his child. Respondents are also
directed to apply mind to schedule the completion of transfer
process in a manner which does not disturb the academic
session of children of the employees.
5. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of with above
directions. No costs."
12. The facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case are not
different, wherein he has clearly indicated, as noticed by the
Tribunal in its order impugned that his daughter was studying in
LKG-DS standard and son was studying in IVth standard. However,
though the Bench, which passed the order impugned comprised of
[2023:RJ-JP:41014-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-20396/2023]
the same Judicial Member, who has passed the orders (Annexures-
13 & 14), the petition came to be rejected.
13. Though the order impugned proceeds on the basis and by
referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
against interference in the order of transfer, as to why the said
judgments were not relied on, on earlier occasion while passing
Annexures-13 & 14, has not been indicated. Neither the facts nor
legal position have been distinguished. The said action of the
Tribunal, cannot be appreciated.
14. Even otherwise, when admittedly, children of the petitioner
are in mid-session i.e. from April to November they have already
studied, the same was even otherwise a fit case for interference
by the Tribunal.
15. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed. The order dated 14.12.2023 (Annex.12) dismissing the
Original Application of the petitioner is set-aside and it is directed
that effect and operation of order of transfer dated 20.05.2023
shall remain suspended till the end of present academic session
i.e. March, 2024, in the interest of the education of petitioner's
children. As the petitioner has already been relieved, the
respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to rejoin on the
post from where he has been relieved, forthwith.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
Rmathur/84
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
