Uttarakhand High Court
Sant Lal Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 August, 2016
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: K.M. Joseph, V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 216 of 2016
with
CLMA No. 8121 of 2016 (Delay Condonation Application)
Sant Lal Arya. ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. .......Respondents
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: August 10, 2016
Coram: Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) There is delay of 7 days in filing the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Delay Condonation application, being unopposed by the learned Brief Holder, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal will stand condoned.
4. Appellant is the writ petitioner. He challenged his transfer. The learned Single Judge found that it is clearly stated in the impugned order that he has not been transferred on administrative ground and, therefore, his contention did not find help. Secondly, it is contended that his wife is suffering from cancer and, thereupon, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing that if the appellant joins promptly and discharges his 2 duties, he will be at liberty to make a representation, which will be considered in the light of the fact that the appellant's wife is suffering from cancer and she is getting treatment at Sushila Tiwari Government Medical College, Haldwani. It is also made clear that this may be a relevant consideration, but only after verification of the entire facts and subject to the appellant's joining and taking classes at his new place of posting at Government Industrial Training Institute, Dharchula.
5. Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has joined on 04.07.2016 and he has made a representation on 20.07.2016. He submits that the condition that the appellant has to take classes may not be justified, because he is a Foreman and his duties do not include taking classes. He complains that no time limit has been fixed. He would submit that the appellant is due to retire within a span of two years.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to fix a time limit and also to make it clear that that the condition regarding taking of classes will apply only if job entails taking classes.
8. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed. We direct that the representation filed by the appellant will be disposed of within a period of two weeks' from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Secondly, the condition that the appellant must take classes at his 3 new place of posting will be subject to the condition that this will apply only if job involves taking of classes; otherwise, if the appellant has joined and is discharging his duties attached to his job that will be treated as sufficient compliance.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
10.08.2016
Arpan