Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aneeshah vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12699) on 6 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:12699]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5365/2025
Aneeshah W/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar, D/o Sh. Satyapal, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Plot No. 112, Ward No. 12, Jetsar, District
Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of
Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dierctor (Non-Gazette), Medical And Health Services, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Joint Director, Medical And Health Services Bikaner, Zone
Bikaner.
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sriganganagar, District
Sriganganagar.
5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Anoopgarh.
6. Block Chief Medical Officer, Raisingh Nagar, District
Sriganganagar.
7. Office Incharge, Community Health Center, Jaitsar, District
Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CR Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral)
06/03/2025
1. Yet again, another expectant mother--four and half month
into her pregnancy--is before this Court seeking judicial
intervention as a consequence of the State's sheer apathy and
callous disregard for basic human dignity. Assailed herein is an
order dated 24.02.2025 (Annex.-7), relocating the petitioner,
serving as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM), from CHC Jaitsar
to Block Raisinghnagar.
2. According to her medical report dated 19.01.2025, the
petitioner was then 13 weeks pregnant i.e. about 18 weeks as on
today.
[2025:RJ-JD:12699] (2 of 3) [CW-5365/2025]
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that transfer
contravenes Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Transferred
Activities) Rules, 2011. He further contends that the petitioner,
who is at the advanced stage of her pregnancy, cannot be
transferred at this juncture due to her medical condition.
5. Per contra learned counsel for respondents argues that
transfer is an integral part of service conditions of a government
employee and the same arise out of the administrative exigencies.
Therefore, no indulgence is warranted by this Court.
6. At the outset, reference may be had to a judgment rendered
by this very bench Court in Jyoti Parmar Vs State Institute Of
Health And Family Welfare & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1422/2025 (decided on 23.01.2025) followed by another one
in Sulochna Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : SBCWP No.1905/2025,
decided on 28.01.2025. Reasons and discussion rendered therein
be read as part and parcel of order herein.
7. Reverting to the case in hand, if the petitioner is to comply
with the transfer order impugned herein, she will have to travel
about 160 kms. (80 km. each way) everyday during her
maternity. Not only that, travel would also necessarily entail
health hazards for both mother as well as the infant, be it pre-
natal or post-natal.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. It is
expected that the competent authority to take a humanitarian
outlook on the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner, given
the pre- and post-natal care needed by her at this crucial stage
[2025:RJ-JD:12699] (3 of 3) [CW-5365/2025]
and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, either to keep
the petitioner in the same district or in the vicinity thereof, from
where she can commute every day. Needful be done within a
period of 30 days from the date the petitioner approaches the
competent authority with a web-print of the instant order.
9. Till then, effect and operation of the impugned order qua the
petitioner shall remain stayed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
13-/Jitender/Love
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
