Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dr Leena Mistry vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 9 March, 2021
:n f T r' 1 6.a. 350.00683.2020 «- * ^ t ' f. # ♦ CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA vf * i.
1f1;' No. O.A. 350/00683/2020 Date of order:
€ {i I f n 5 j «-
ft Present t Hon^ble Ms. Bidisha Baneijee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatteijee, Administrative^Member {■ Dr. Leena9rMistry, $ p * Wife of Dr. Kbushik Das, £ 4 I * I & Presently residing at Greenfield pasis£ t' 1 * Block- Mandakini, Flat No. 1C, f ;.i t P.O Rasapunja, P.S Bishnupur, r ill i District - SoJth 24 Parganas, f Pin 700104 i 3 •. *
--Applicant.
• 5 j-Versus j: $ m ? • * ; 4 4 ** f ;! 5
1. Union of India, 1-
,1 kr II f r ? f Service through the Secretary,! tc Department of Personnel & Training! C I Y I Government of India, f f I M k^ I *C I t i! North Block, New DelhRl 10001. f 1[• feI! t ft
-v 4 * fr j •V* i £
2. The Joint Secretary, f c f♦ # Govt, af India, t. V s f. * Ministry* ofi Personnel,|TPubliG Grievances' sifcf^ensions, (Departmint of Personnel anci Training, Nort| ; flock f S New Delhi - 110001. >■
3. The Director, ii Ji ft Ir l Department of Personnel & Training, - -^Hi"
^ ^ Ministry of Personnel^ Publfc G^evancesf ^Pensions, | Government of India, | I ' f 1 North Block, £ f ' I . I New Delhi-110001.
¥ P
4. Employees' State lnsufance;Corp'bration, | l h
I
(Ministry xof Labour and Ernpiofemnt, c|p^ of irIndia) V Panchdeep Bhawan^ - f ' f '§§ I j CIGiRoad, * s ^ "
T \k
i :t£ u
* *
I if
# a- #
;
r
if
-'fs
ft ft
V
!: i
IIr1- *
*'■
F S Li t;
I Ff ?
F -S.. ------F
I If %•
ft! * i t
4
s
v [L
I
jj
i.-
V-
t I fX'5'
tl
ft
6
G *:■
I
f
ft
r r
'
f, •
t1 f
is-
(Ai
r f'j I
i,
1
,5;
• 2 - o.a. 350.00683.2020 9
i *
!
New Delhi - U0002. L" I
t
*
if t
5. The Additional Commissioner for* -I
i t i
•i
It
if
*■<
Director General, 5 t s.
I- ¥
I:-: lr
a;
Employees' State Insurance Corporation; t
ISf !
Panchdeep Bhawan, A
CIG Road,
T--
if >
New Delhi-110002. ti s ft! vff-. I
6. The Deputy Director (MA)r ^ t! . If;
Employees' State Insuran&e Corporation; . i Jl
i
i ft141
r|
Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, .
£
i
M v
f
r
f
New Delhi-110002. it I Br I *i S' t S # r 4 ?
I ■3,
fj
V
t'f ? i
7. ESI-PGIMSR,* i "JW
V
?
ESIC Medical College e
& ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), Joka, S' ill «r A I Diamond Harbour Road, ^ fi I fe P.O- Joka, * I p f'S®' £ P' Kolkatd - 700104. I 4' / !• 4Tk I r#. F iff I
8. The Asst. Director (Administration), Jf '•t# # iff t ESI-PGIMSRi ESIC Medical College -i£ & ESIC Hospital & ODcfEZ) Joka M f Diamond Harbour Road, If t fc ' I L ft I P.O- Joka,* **- < t f S' f! VB, # Kolkata-700104.
£
1 ffc*
f a |
9. The Dfe'an? >1 l
r
ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), § ;*i
Joka,?Diamond Harbour Road, s
P.O- Joka,
i s ■'4
i4
: I v
Kolkata -j700.104. f. jf
?
IV
I Kf.: i-XS
{I
10. The Medical-Superintendent?
?■ I *■ ESIC Hospital *& ODC (EZ), 4-
Jokd, Diamond Harbour Road, g 4r
P.O- Joka,
sr
I i.
Kolkata f 700104. i 2 I :i; '4' W « it
11. The Dep&ty Director (Enanc^e),. g f- -1 |W i;] 5 I 6 k i ESIC .Hospital & ofecf(EZ), f f f c i * 4S '■ rsE.';
w 5 5 'c^i' Ii
J. $
i m t i
i
t
*
J
lM k:
ik i
& f :: 4
*
K 1 s
t if #-
i
v r4 i# I
I; f i S
1 im
Sr' ' l
s
£
VS
*
t d
i
LS I
? f
i j
If L »•
iS-f. t
I I
If f,
V i ;
>
1
* 'ft.
3 -o.a. 350.00683.2020
A*
s t*: r v r f
is;
SB
J
*■
Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, I I
K5 ^f- f
« P.O- Joka, r \
- k it
Kolka+a-700104. i f t
V
H i c o
12. The Deputy Director (DeanOffice), C 'i i U i * ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), II 1 ¥ & >• Joka, Diamond Harbour Road,; K & f;
; i V
s P.O- Joka,, A ! •-> ft
1- -S. . fl C:
:L
Kolkata-700104. ? ir
f.
# I fl
& / v
13. I The l/C, .t K- $
■$
* i-
MDDC Haldia,
#
I $
4 4
Basudevpur^Haldia, r t f I
■i
1 *
Purba Medihipur, I
Pin 721604. .
V t
|:>v
,T F t
; ■;
■ 4
u -Respondents.
*
For the Applicant » Mr. R.N. I pI Barik/Counlel i c l : I t "!■ i t | f For the Respondents : Mr. S. Chowdhury, Counsel p f & . ?; li £. ?! ft ORDERS i f? fl * i t 4 .. I h} fl Per Dr, Nandita Chatteriee. Administrative Member i! I. V f i u n |> LB ?
f t u f:
The ^applicant has approached this Tribunal in' second* stage * f, s l i pi n i " - * litigation under Section 19 of the AdminisUativeTTribuhals" Aet;f' 1985 f ^ t V * lr-. i J$ ?: ' ! I ff ; f praying for the following relief:- i M Order 'No. 412-T- jc-
i "(a) To cancel, rescind, revoke and/or withdrawn-Office 11/11/158 (O.A. No. 569. of 20)/2020 dated 01.09.2020'for^transfer of • . the applicant from ESI Hospital & ODC (EZ),::Joka to MDCC 'Haldia^and # as also the corresponding release-order datedj03.09.202(X"andpermit the ^ I4 applicant to continue working lin he^ present iplace&f gosting| ESI | hospital, Joka'in die Department^bf Pulmonaiy|and ChesTDisease. | f i * f ' !
(b) JE The applicantlbe Remitted to rejdin.he^earlier post as Mp otPiilmpnaiy and Chest Diseases in ESIC Jokar1 f w r || fi }; | I.:
(c) < Cost of and incidental to this application. ; t i * i r * f-r £■ f
(d) V Pass such other or further orderror orders." i| f- t a a f r * #• T r Ul 4= * ■s £ ;r t i f .if i !* a li i ii fi «■ t * ■i ■% £ ; r ;
t ** i i r f
«r
M1
i:
i
i*
r? i e f %
fi
•7
»■;
c K
5 Jv
4
t r-
Ip fi If ■I
*
s
<■
ff
*:■>
ff- i (Sr 4
I
ft l# I
y.
p
'<)
f
£
♦
S' x 2
f
c t- c #■
i-
ip-''
•j
/ i
I
4 o.a. 350.00683.2020
■r
C
•i
I & ff
I
i
:«■
2. Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides, examined pleadings^ and ■/ ■ j ,f j # documents on record. Ld. Counsel for the applicant?:has submitted his y written notes, of arguments.
t.
t; ub h
\
v V
i-:
f :
Ld. Counsel for the applicant would submit that; the applicaht.had i ?'■ * § . it:' joined the Office of the respondent authorities on 28.7.2015 Sis an IMO j-i Gr. II and .she was all along posted in ESllPGIMSR, ESIC Medical h r ; | £1 h College, ESIC Hospital 8s ODC (EZ), Joka, Kolkata. The lapplicant's * spouse had joined the same institution on 1.9.2012£as IMO Gr. I^and is : f; * H ; *& 1 £ t.
presently on study leave at Medical College, Kolkata.f j : i ;;
!>
f c i: n Is .
That, Although the authorities have issued a moratorium order on . \ rotational transfers vide their office order dated^ 4.6.2020, in total n ,;_i r I 51 I..:
i ; f; ji I ' .
violation thereof, the applicant-was transferred to ESIC, MDDC| Haldia &
J ' ? • p | | " f
vide order elated 4,8.2020 and stood as relieved, on 6.8.2020. * A
| ?'
; rv
c ■
i;
Aggrieved by such transfer order, the applicant §hack earlier ^
■-
"L
r
approached this Tribunal in O.A.-. Novr 350'/00569/2020| which was &■■■
<
T I--: • jh .
disposed of on 14.8.2020, and, in compliance thereof, the respondent v §■ pf •- ti: - & authorities issued a speaking ordenonrl.9.2020, r rejecting her claim for * V-r retention at ESI-PGIMSR, ESIC Medical College, ESIC Hospital & ODC * * 4', I t ■■ fjf* !■ i - . * r, .
(EZ), Joka* Kolkata. Being aggrieved^with such rejection and<wi& a claim p I 1 ■. r to quashing of such speaking order, thfe applicant has approached this g f P I I" J * . - . ! n ' rr; f S' ?> Tribunal in the instant O.A. $ { 1 f* ■ T,-
»
3. The primary grounds, inter alia, on which the applicant has t:
ii challenged the actions of the respondent authorities are asfbllcw/s:-
if.: I |; z
(i) * That, the applicant's spouse is Ilso a. Medical! Omcer Gr. II S ' -
* and, that, as he is located in Kolkata on study|lekve, the # | Sr ^
-J; ^ J E c applicant would claim that she is entitled to be posted with f i\ i U ;• h v Lv* f ?
ii • *:
¥■
5 £
1*
*■
i
* if
* ' i.!
r.-
- p p.. : v ■
; i:
■>
f ; 5 _■
f■
z. ?I i v *
f-.f
r
I:
f i u
I ■ .t-
v n Ji
ii
t-
i* i J
i; (!
c
i: f
?T
St
f 4
' •>? * ' ' .B
I* ; « >
■ ■&$■
% 5 o.a. 350.00683.2020 tm
a -*
i;; if | p 5 j
her spouse in the same station' virtue|of DOPT's O.M.
ij
I i
dated 30.9.2020 (Annexure A-6Ho~ the OfA|). f I
f
(ii) That, vide Office Order dated ,4.6.2020|(Annexure|A-4 to the
:
O.A.) a total moratorium wasamposedion rotational transfer ^ fi | l I I U -III? f :
upto 30.4.2021, and, that, atf there weS mo administrative ♦ I , ■ if i M 1 I reasons to fill up vacancies due to promotion/retirement and ■ Sill ff :
consideration of requests by officers/staff on compassionate • f grounds in MDDC, Haldia, the applicants transfer could not ' 2 :
I ; | m i have been treated as an exception to such moratorium.
f ■ i ff f ~l s
(iii) The applicant's transfer order is in contradiction to the policy
I l 5* ^ M &
*
for optimum^ utilization of ©DM(^s wjth| PostfGraduation ;
1 li i; { "Mai?-'
* ■I '
' ;
qualification; i I ?
i ,. sucht^ transfer orders "w^s ■ Iii Recount of
(iv) |That Inotsf on s 5 M| f Administrative reasons or'public eadgenci^s, an<ft hence was i f .
f j IM -j | fillegal and ought to be quashed. * | jj ! 1 I , -*■ f -i g 4 •i , (V) iThat, the Dean of ESI - PGIMSR had /Already recommended ;
|release of one GDMO post in'favour ofithe applicant.
Ml f f ' f * i
f
!■
•
n f*
(vi) JThat, there was no requirement to!fill|up the all Tour: polts in «* I i *ESIC, MDD'fc^ Haldia as because sufficiehtlnumber of palients .
* ' f f| ? I f :
Ido
; not attend such centre.: There isfneither any scope of I 2, > i 1 III! f f m ^ ! f f ^ ^enhancement of work, nori has| an^ emergency^ situation ^ f J * 'f I Im f I i arisen from exceptional works therein:'8 gi f i it applicant,ihe 4vofdbc4)rs ^attached to the ? $ According to the j ; I in i ' 1 MDD; centre, Haldia ^are sifificient! mjadrlress io the .health 4 i m ■ 3 ■ i fit j •.
I needs of the patients in' * such centre, and, hence, the ;
4 " ?i ^
i |
f I •
¥
fI ? •
S'
4 - •i.
•i
4 SI t
i
* i
?
£ I 3£r
f f •
\ ' I £
I I i
*
I f'
r
*
ii i
f
i I IM j
5 I
fi m ?
*m •
st
i i
* # ,
i * .
■i r
i
V I i
SL a-
Sr'
4
i
r
'!
/ if - Ml-.
l- • Jl ' r
>. 6 o.a. 350,00683.-2020 5+ p- > * *■ M -• ?' respondents' actions in trying to fill ug the third post is ' 0.
Sr-', manifestly illegal.
. m
pi f
ff
i * W
4. Per contra, the'respondents have argued as follows:- I f " & T l
(i) That, the applicant was appointed as IMO Gr. II on 28.7.2015, and, that; she wasanitially posted at IGU (PACCU) ' SS ? f v I and remained in such post foidnearly fdurjyears, untihshe was < * • posted in the. Department of Pulmonary Medicine {TB*& Chest iT I lM.. i * , •?
'■ 'v f * €T s t
......
Medicine) from 11.4.2019.
..___ J I II I i
(ii) That, presently, one regular senior specialist of|SAG Cadre
it fi . | f g t s i 's ■ .
and one.Assistant Professor are posted fin nhe department of i
Pulmonary Medicine (TB 8b Chest Medicine)! I
■fi
-m. ; Iff ; f
i l
(iii) That, a circular bearing No. 412rZ-11?/15/1/2013/Vol-VIII
» .. (
dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure? A-13 to Ithe O.A.) guides the * p ■' ^ rotational transfer policy between ESICjHospital 8b ODC .(EZ), &I t | ? % Joka as well as to MDDC Haldia. t I I
(iv) Ixhat, m]dDG, Haldia, is? an extension IfiESIC Holpital &|oDC i 11 I r * < i i in ; i ;■ I .
|(EZ), Joka cand that MDDGf Haldia|fe manne|i by why of rotational transfer of medical, para-me&ical aftdfnursing staff t i a: £ vt from ESIC Joka. IS I # * 5. » i ! The respondents, would, further clarify certain salient features of :
iff. i t i i i :fS t the said rotational policy as follows:- : ;
*| 1 i
(a) » The transfer of an incumbent under the said transfer policy is * 4 & i i only for a period of one year? f sin 3?
' ! '
(b) That, the transfers under the said transfer policy is on the
basis of recommendation of t the%
ws
fairness
n committee'
1 I
i
t
i
4 I J; .1t
v *
I f •*
PS .
I 1 * v.
5
I ( 1 £■
3$ >1
I f ■ 4
•4
t
?
I I
< i
?
I f
I '
a
r. h
fi
t
■
fj
5 ^
;
*
...if i I
*
c
£
: i B
1 Is t1 ■S
t
4
l i I
' II ?
t T
!
+• ,
i
i'i . '.
> 7 o.a. 350.00683.2020
•• / i;
constituted to streamline implementation of the , said tremsfer policy. I: L. ! *■;
According to the respondents:
(i) Under such rotational transfer policy, the- applicant was the junior-most eligible IMO who was to be transferred to MDDC, Haldia during January, 2019. ¥ ! ft-.
The applicant, however, was on matemityi leave during 1.8.2018 to f' f' 1' ^ j ; J■ ; ?
25.1.2019, and, hence, one Dr. Manoj Kumar Das,vher immediate senior, i ^
. * - ■ r: J ^
was posted in lieu of the applicant, at MDDC fHaldia. completiofi of
' ' • J 4
her maternity leave, the applicant became liable ,to be transferred to MDDC Haldia. As she was nursing an infant child, on humanitarian ■v t ■ ■ * grounds, the respondent authorities suo motu extended such concession considering the post natal circumstances of the applicant, and,; Dr. ; t Manoj Kumar Das was retained in MDDC Haldia. | - *" i ti U l :
i,.
V
(ii) That, a letter bearing No. 412.A.12/1 l/SS/Vol;II vn the issue of ! revised sanction on rationalization dated 16.2.2019 (Annexure RJ-6 to
4.* the rejoinder), would reveal that there is no fsanctioned post of IMO & : r- t <■ ;
Specialist as per revised sanctioned strength ^dated'21.1^019 indicating ^ ^ .
that the applicant'was a surplus staff at ESIG Hospital & ODCl!(EZ), ?>
i V,
t if ? f ■
Joka. t• l ;' t; ?
il:
vl V
V:
(iii) That, the applicant was posted to the extended Unit of Haldia as i ' • • per the recommendations of the "fairness comniittee" constituted under s f the said rotational policy. i f:
i
(iv) That, although there was a moratorium oh rotational transfer vide k r If V v order dated 31.1.2020, Dr. Manoj Das had requested for compassionate v i! ' . y- f:
transfer back to ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ)$ on ^grounds of medical u:
:
5. ' y. r. i- i*' i - y r- it Vi ; i- r• i. ii i- i.' ! I iv v <.■ : ■ i, ■>. ii •/ I 'j- * 8 o.a. 350.00683.2020 ;■ *-■ va. i:- . * 9 % f& i .f 4 *' c
treatment of his autistic son and he had foregone joining time* and 0 ^ ^ £1 ti composite transfer grant to avail of such transfer. $ ti TJ 1 , £ Hencev Dr. Manoj Kumar Das was accommodated as per the 17 exception ta the moratorium orders and the applicant was directed to be if ^ | :
posted at MDDC, Haldia vide orders dated 4.8.2020f (Annexure A-3 to the ¥ t ' . ? 9 I I H: ' C j !■ <r f O.A.). v t ? t, i
(v) That/the vacancy on departure of Dr. Manoj Kumar Das was T affecting patient care service at MDCC, Haldia and the I/C, MDCC, Haldia had repeatedly requested the authorities for posting of an IMO to P , f handle aifd take care offithe patients at MDDC, Haldiai Hence, the h i - 7 respondents would highlight that the applicant's transfer was indeed on , r f0 : : .
* 1
-■ f E n i the grounds of administrative exigencies. t i D <;
t.5 f.
t f " 1»
6. As die speaking order is under challenge/ thev same is reproduced *> 0 t t fj as underS it C;
f;
« I1
b
r
1; ti
ESI-PGIMSR AND ESIC HOSPITAL & ODC (E.Z.) V
DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, JOKA/KOLKATA, 700 104 ^ !
v (A statutory body under the Ministryfof Labour &vEmplosrment, Government of India) f * AN ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED ORGANIZATION Sf !■ ! Fax 2467 2795, Phone: 2467 1764 / 6280 /1322 l' * 12T-11/11/158 (OA No. 569 of 20)/ 2020 l- Dated: 01.09.2020 £ i i J £ ORDER i * !r Di? Leena Mistry was appointed as* IMO Graded II vide Hqrs Office Offer of, ; Appointment Memorandum No. A-14/1|3/ 1^2006-Med TV/Col: ! I dated' 13707.2015 & 21.07.2015 and subsequently joined ESIC & ODC (EZ)1; Joka oir 2ffi07.2015 (FN). 51 - i * i IB . * * l.| Dr. Leena Mistry was initially posted at I CU (PACCU) from 28.07.2015. t U' 2jt MDDC, Haldia is an extended unit of ESIC Hospital 86 ODC (EZ), Joka. 3fl Before transfer to MDDC, Haldia which is an extended part of ESIC Hospital . I' 8s ODC (EZ), fJoka, she was posted in the DeptgoffPuimoriary Medicine (TB 8& c fi Chest Diseases) from 11.04.2019. ^ p, * if % - t 4V1 ti She has been transferred to MDDC, Hlldia vide!this Office Oder. No. 79 of »5 » i » I 2020 dated 04.08.2020. f f} . f | 5? The stated Office Order No. 79 of 2020 dated 04.08.2020 has been issued as U per the policy recommended by "Fairness^ Committee on Transfer" of this . 6 Hospital, so* issued vide Circular No. ^412rZU 1/15/1/2013/Vol-VIII dated 30.10.2013. I;
Pi * f f J t,
i
F.i t
*' l Iff •
i[f l
St
h 1
r.;r
7 H
u c;
'f
*;■ i t. *
*
f. h
1
r
4.
f
ji ti
f!
Si
;•
■x
ffi • -
7.'
¥ " C ■ *
t.<-.«
9 o.a. 350.00683.2020 f I,
h f ' 1
/
u
3
/ 6. The petitioner- submitted representation on 05.08^2020 by quoting (ESIC &/ Hqrsf Office Oder No. A-22/13{T)/2020-Med yi Covid- 19 dated 04.06:2020 w f regarding Moratorium on rotational transfer of officers / (Staffs in view of Covid-19 pandemic and claim , her transfer^ order1 is neither based on administrative reasons to fill up any vacancy ^ue..tb|promotion/ retirement nor based on any request from her side on compassionate ground. *
7. The ICompetent Authority did not accept her claim/representation idated 05.0jl.2020 considering-her transfer as administrative .exigencies to sustain * coveted patient cafe service' at MDDd5Haldia|which* ist anfeJrtended 'part of ESIC Hospital^ 8s ODC (EZ),-Joka and released her|on|06Tp8^2020 with the advice to report for duty at MDDC, Haldia videferelease order not 412- U.22/14/MDDC Haldia/2015 dated 06.08.2020. . j;
8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with no response to her representation dated 05.08.2020 the petitioner filed an OA No. 569 of'2020 before the Honhle CAT Kolkata Bench. Honble CAT Kolkata Bench vide its order dated 14.08.2020 has disposed off the OA "to consider the representation of the applicant at Annexure A7 to the OA, if received at his end,*? within a period of twofweeks from the date of received of a copy of thisforder." Tillfsuch time that the representation is disposedvbff^ aslthe applicant has already been relieved as per Annexure AS to the OAjthe respondents may notftake any coercive measures to compel her to fjoin her transfer place of Pofing". lift* *
8. If In compliance of above directions of iHon'ble GAT^Kolkata Bench as I received by the advocate of the respondents on 28.08.2020, the representation of the petitioner which was|received by this office on I 05.0812020 through e-mail was again perused sbyi the Competent f Authority. J 5! i. ^I j l 8.2. In accordance with direction of Hont'ble 'GAT ?Kolkata Bench t have • | taken into; consideration the contentions expressed by the applicant .
M in her representation dated 05:08.2020. - ^ * * *
V t.
f i I- i
9.#I have gone through the facts made out^n th^represen^ation aridltaken * note of the facts'; transpiring from related m*atter iand records and the same . reveals following:- * Jf ^ 9.1 The stated transfer is an administrative exigencies yielded for a request made by Dr. Manoj Das, IMO Grade I for his transfer on: medical ground of his autistic child and accordingly f'his transfer request was accepted by the Competent Authority without ItTA / DA /Joining time that means no cost to the Government for the stated transfer? , ^ 9*2 As per the rotational transfer policy of this iHospital defined by - fairness committee on transfer, IMOs serving.infthis hospital will have to undergo for mandatory rotational transfer to MDDC asiper seniority list starting from junior most. Likewise in the instantscase Dr. ;Leena Mistry was junior most among the available IMOs yet1 to ;.be?transferred to MDDC and was supposed to be on rotational transfer in the month of January 2019. ^3* Whereas the Competent Authority toolcTa hunianitarian view in the chse of petitioner i.e. Dr. Leena Mistry sirice sherwas- riursing mother of anc, infant aged less'than: six-months. i | • 914 Therefore breaking the serial and turii, the timmediate next IMO senior to her, Dr. Manoj Das was considered for^transfer.rHe has served his stipulated' period at MDDC, Hal'di^ and his transfer back* to ESIC^Hospital,, ODC (EZ), Joka was due as per the recommendation of the? Fairness Committee. However he served four morefinonths in addition to the'definite period on account of lockdown prevailing in this;pandemic conditionf 9.5 In this situation, considering the repre'sentafion.of Dr. Manoj Das |he Competent Authority of this ^Hospitll transferred him baci at ESIC Hospital, ODC (EZ), Joka at own cost without-providing him TA/DA/Joining time.
i i f-
&
£ i
li Is i ! .
i f
¥ i. t r.
§ i .
* i *
t i! p. f f
I ■ | "
y - i
i t
i & t
f f
M ! < I F i
I
l ? I ^ ?!
* i t 6 | f- | *
:
; isfr;
c ?■ i
10 o.a. 350.00683.2020 .
*. <r jr-;i
k U© # t ^ r
9.6t The inevitable vacancy soccreated was affecting patient .care
service at MDDC, Haldia. Repeated request Was-received^from I/C, MDDC, Haldia to post an IMO to normalize patient care service. 9.7' Hence the question of transferring an; IMO from ESIC: Hospital, ODC (EZ), Joka to MDDC, Haldia was ^unavoidable. So the stated transfer Order had to be issued. ^ * f- *
9.si Since the applicant's circumstances wasralready considered once, in "view of the ongoing administrative: exigencies theirsame cannot be considered again as it would violate the very purpose of the recommendation of t&e fairness committee. ^ J l [: * ' * f 9.9| The transfer of Dr. Leena Mistryhas been issued as per'-the policy made by "Fairness Committee on Transfer'' ofcthis Hospital. * *■ 9.10 Further the applicant statedtin hisirepresentation:that OZlGDMO posts are already sanctioned in Department of Pulmonary Medicine but the factiis postshave been sanctioned buttthe statedrpostshave not yet been released. It is further to mention that ..Chest Medicine Department of this Institute already have one regular Specialist of SAG' cadre and one Asst. Professor. The determining criteria laid down in the rotational transfer policy as per seniority list ascending fromfrjunior most. Circular on "rotational transfer hearing No. 412-Z-ll/15/l/.-2013/Vol-VIII dated 30.10.2013 does nofcstate that PG qualification is an exemption forxthis rotational transfer of oneyear tenure to MDDC. Further inithe past there are instancesiof posting of IMOs with PG qualification being transferreditq/MDDC as per rotational transfer policy. £ jfii - , ClS?i £ 9.1*1 Regarding point no. 2 of therrepresentation it?should he.clearly noted that this is a rotational transfer of one year and not a permanent posting. So the issue is not valid in this regard.
t ift-' * *p
10. Imview of aforesaid the representationrdated 05'.p8.2020 of the:petitioner * has*been considered but cannot be acceded to. « ts i
11. This Speaking Order is issued in compliahcetwith :directicins"of HonbleXAT, Koikata Bench in OA No. 350/00569/2020. I * ! ' * t f pp f * f M 1* f tsd/- r f r ' Dr.tMariabendra NathRoy | 1 f Medical Superin^hd^it, ESIC Hospital, Joka" * ?P t H' f *■' f " *' & m * e.;
s
it
■■ si.' B
#
^ t'-
• U r •
The following is inferred from the abovenoted .speaking orden-
.i
(i) TThe stated transfer is based' on an administrative, ^exigency fcaused by transfer of Sri Manoj Das, IMO Grade I to Joka on "
i:. tfe i isr'&
i
t- t n
Smedical grounds of his autistic child which'qualified as an 5 * t . i %■ t # .' exception to the moratorium • * on rotational ,p transfers till & |V- « * I ^ S30.4.2021. f! l I- ^I is fl^ * l V U£ As per the rotational transfeispolicy,vserving I t JMOsf willihave &
(ii) fto undergo mandatory rotanonalferiiWfer to" MDDC' ks per Iseniority list starting from thbijuniohimostilMO. Dr.tZjeena | If * Sfi ' f i * « t s-
t
a* m
vb
i i r- !
-
:
*P * f.i
rr
lf3v i k i
? f
•. ©
I tfe | > Ci■4
y.ii
f Li
fr t
•r
i
f
ir-.
« . fl# I
X:
if! £
A
t jr
C £
J.
■ k
11 o.a, 350.00683.2020
! ff? I f ?k
«F1G ii iU . >■
■7
J . tn ■ i j?i £ 'j i.- ;
Mistry was the junior most amongst theravailable IMOs, and ^ . %! p. | ^ r ■■ ^ hence was eligible for rotationahtransfer in January, 2019. L/ 7 i The authorities exempted Dr.|L^enav Mistry dntlariuary, 2019;
l.: V' on humanitarian grounds since she was .nursing her new ¥(: f A born infant.
S-! & f} > f.>*•' The IMO who was immeditehasenior tocher, Dr.^Manoj Das, IP :« 1^ ' M :
was therefore considered forifetransfer^ :Drr Das' rhast served 8 t <' t.i i i i, 4 more than his stipulated peripd a^MDCC,- Haldia, and, his <;
p.' transfer back to ESIC HospitalflODC (EZ), .Jokajvasidue asT |2f1 ^ ;l ?
per the recommendation of-th^rfaimess" committee-. Hence ; as» t,!' -f., t * ' ! 41 v i *!i H js i -i'' | i Dr. Das, had more rthan completed the? stipulated transfer r st ,r* ry, '*■ tenure as per the rotation^ ^transfer ' policy, he had ! ■ 4 ' f; :
represented to be posted at E%IC,'Joka,ron-medical grounds '■ i-
of his autistic son, upon consideration? of which, he was M -? sn. « t * posted at Joka creating a consequent vacancy, i > y *p I-
|n n ft" ? ;> .
(hi) The consequent vacancy so created Having affected'patient Eli ' U': f :
care service at MDCC, Haldia,: Repeated requests were jjjr| ;: ? {.'! i; v ■ received from 1/Cl MDCC, Haldiattcfrpqst?ah iMOlto" address f;
the rising incidence of patierftSr in|the rpandemic situation • ! S' t t | 1I e ■ )r !' y k-
Accordingly, the applicant wasttransferredJo MDDC, Haldia.
0' §Ii I I | f| l
(iv) The transfer order of^the applicaot^i^s beeniis^ied asiper the ' f Ti ZI t ■ l .
y Jj ♦ ff' •' -
recommendation-made by "Fairness Committeemen Transfer". The Chest Medicine Departmen&f tiie respondentrlnstitute is
(v) <> p, r ^ r b' attended by one regular Specialist ofsSAGircadre: and one Asst. 4 Rp P IP'' l* I * 4 j'.Professor. ?■ - iC 1 , 7
i f; . i, t
4n *1 its I «
■i 0 ip. ;
H e •:
1 * ih
i. • i:
i;
it
!.
. '/I
i. 1 :• * i > ■'¥
* fn V 1
l: c
■ eh
ah l.
I
*
;
|h
nl in I
t.
7
r 1*1
t-
*
**
•v
.
III • •
JT; i* I'
fell V 1
11 i
r \n if c
fell t
■
pi v
;
V J
*■
Ji ;
f
fV
fig .
i:nt ^ ip
iiv v | i'j £i •i
•/
---jwr^r
12 o.a. 350.00683.-2020 f £ f ;
■ .■?
i r
v i v
/
(vi) The circular on rotational transfer, does not* exempt post
f/ * fv-.
¥ ri e"
graduates from such transfer and historically, IMOs with PG qualifications have been transferred# to MMDC as per ' '-
rotational transfer policy. irU f
(vii) As the tenure of rotational transfer is only forgone year, the i r'-;
aggressive resistance of the applicant- to such transfer is i:;
v neither reasonable nor valid. i r':.
I'
US' \ i j
Having heard both Counsel, and, having considered rival
if:
(,'i
arguments, the applicant's claim deservesVto be examined in terms of rules and settled judicial ratio. 'O \ t ■? .■ J Ui i ■! 5 i., V c r
(a) The concept of transfer has been summed updn B. Varadha Rao (* i I: i.
v. State of Karnataka, 1986 (3) SLR 60f(SC) wherein it has been held •! that, i i:
i t
& r
f
"... it is now settled that the Government servant is liable to be transferred to a - similar post in the same cadre which is a normal'.feature and incident of Government service and no Government' servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified non-transferable post. \ -
In Seshrao Nagorao Umap v. State of Maharashtra, (1985) II * > t LLJ 73 (Bom.) the Hon'ble Court had pointed outtthat transfer is also an :P: r i'-.
f t r
implied condition of service, and, hencej-Jas :held Sivahkutty Nain
[if; ■ ^ ^ 1: . ;
v. Managing Director, Syndicate Bank; 1984*(2) SLR 13 (Kant) an H : ' - fi V , ;
employee cannot, as a matter for right,1. seekLtransfer to a place of his ini * ^ choice. This view was further reiterated: ini: Union of India' v. N.P. iilt -1 n:
Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 that,-_siricfe alpublic|sei^ant holds a * : i-
I , transferable post, he has no vested right*toTemain*in arparticular place nor can he insist that he must be pasted at bne place or the other i'J'r ; t i:
because no Government can function in*such manner. The Honhle Court i'-t] ■:
?-
* 9 ;
i t: ••
(fd
iU i
■
l; f :
. i:
i V
a
i
Pi -
u < - « yi; l • .J ■
!
i:
:■
X:
! ' * •I
a ll F
lit: .o i: i
>: i:
f ■
r* '
in: r,
f f
i' i
Li ? l ■>
£
•• f :■
vfe-
# ¥. - k
f i'-
u ■ ? rI ;■
1 V.'
13
t\h
fj Vi
o.a. 350.00683t2020 .
I il
$ V
V if * l *
r
v
/
? had also held in Rajendra Singh v. Statetof UP}, (2009) IS SCC&178
V V' 45
that the government servant is liable to be ^transferred in administrative il is exigencies from one place to another, and,#that, such transfer is not~only r: i"
an incident inherent in terms of appointment! butsralso implicit:as an tv , * f t essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to ? * s f * f;, the contrary. ^ r •: i f & • I i The applicant's appointment ordersmt^Ar 1 itp the ,O.A. does not fill i ft ij . v declare her appointment as IMO in ESIC d&!a "non transferable post;" {• p •? !f ■ ! ! 1 l We next would proceed to examinetitheT context in which transfer ?
(b) p.i| ff V I 4 ff ■ • 4 I;
orders will be justified.
The Honhle Court had,-in xIogendrarMotianty v.t States of Orissa, , i. >v ■ ~ 1979 (1) SLR 892, reiterated in Uniorrof lhdiaMv. S.L. Abbas; AIR * ?■ \ ■ ■ t ;
f-* <■! ' ,■ I 1993 SC 2444, had held that the prerogative of making the transfers is £S that of the employer, and, that, who is to Seltrahsferredfand where, is the * V matter for the appropriate authority to decide.. | |^ | \ ¥ •* * It has also been settled by judicial <fictanA NiK. Singh b. Union off i >■ India, (1995) ILLJ 854 &tAbani KantmRaytu. State of Orissa, U995, it .iii l Supp (4) SCO 169, as citearin Bank ofHndiarStaff Unioniv. Bank of, *■ India, (1996)11 LLJ 1219 pat, ■ l Ip 1! IP ' M |pJ| || n '1 fI i ■' 5* "Unless the decision is vitiated by malarfides or infraction0 of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer^ which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable ^standards for scrutinizing all# » i transfers and the courts lack the Jnecesslxy4- expertise for personnel? . 5 management of all government departments? This must be left, inrpublic0 interest, to the departmental heads subject to1 the dimited. judicial, scrutiny. indicated. Challenge in courts of a transfer^when the:career'prospects remain unaffected and also there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should', be rarer Such interference may be made only when a judicially manageable andTperinissible ground is maderout.
£ f: v: . ( ' i-
It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service .not to be interfered with the Courts tunless it is shovmrtofbe Nearly arbitrary or vitiated^ by mala tides or infraction of any professedThorm|or principle ^governing the5 transfer. * t § S l i, f • M 1 m .7 #: | il f;
?
IP 'l fl
I * ♦ t!
V,
fc 5f & * t If ■
V.
f.
tff
•i
:*f v
r *
9-.
a
I yI
■' \\
;«
it r < «
.- ^l 5=
111
iitfc £
t; f: :r
■ P
If
#1
5!
i. n i *
t' ft
*
* ,
A- 14 o.a. 350.00683:2020 n* t * IV r
/
i -I
j; flf? •.
i
;; •;
/ It is needless to emphasise that a.govemment employee or any servanuof
/ a public undertaking has no legal right to insist1 for being posted at any
particular place. It cannot be disputed., that concerned employee holds*' a ■ / transferable post and unless specifically provided!^ his service conditions, he &• has no choice in the matter of posting " | ' {. * s ?• S f* t.
¥V: lV In the instant matter, the respondent^autliorities have argued that * l' t . f:
the applicant has been transferred to^an extended unit of ESIC, Joka % t.
only for one year and also that such? transfen was necessitated as an I r-
requests^ o£I tlie J IC, MDDC % administrative exigency on the repeated^-
i ^-|JL jf t * • * i-
Haldia to cope with the increased inflow ^of patfents on account of the Cu
ffH? f! • Mi
" ' u
k
situation created by the pandemic, fit cannot? be disputed that the services of a Pulmonologist are essential to|deal|with complications that ¥ i- ' had arisen with the spread of the pandemic and it is? difficult to accept *- ff -I • V Sfe . i ■ the fact that the authorities were notracting in public interest in moving |6 .si M . j i ;
the applicant from Joka, (where she is repoHedly, as per RJ 6, a surplus ill -i i' I i f J, ■ i staff), to Haldia, where her servicesfwould be ;rof benefit tbfthe patient community. The applicant has echoedrsuch sentiments in her averment aH s , that, "she has been sincerely and diligentlyfserving mankind in the global ifM || : I | 1 epidemic," Such diligence, however, ftanndt remain cbnfined only tof-the . 4 f ;■ P I I $ patients imESIC, Joka. * Pff f* !' min f f * * 9' d i;
* !• Accordingly, when a transfer; order : is issued to address administrative exigency," and, in putnid iiitirestf ittcannqt be|faulted with ! 11 infraction of any professed norm oriprinciplej governing*theftransfer. and !l * r * $■ , I n e: * i the applicant's allegations in challenging^the public" exigency fails to be if *■ t f h ** % * ?
substantiated.
(c) The applicant would rely on4the-rdrder|dated> 4.6.2020 regarding u 1:
moratorium on her transfer.
? ir f r
'? i
£t
ip. f f
u y f f* (.
f, •\
:< i^ ' |
i- f
?
fi' :f
i.*
tc * i
*
;<
^ 4#
m•J
ft
P J
t l
i
f:
*■
ti
J> V;
» i j:
a 'i *i if
If ' '1' I
If 5;
*
i-'
r
f l s
II rj.
jn $ >
■?
i * I
if
* f r
r: rKH
i ■ Hi.
■ fi
r >
ii
^!: r ■i >
C
i- 15 O.a. 350.~00683.2020 V . t;- ? C *■
lr : O f* 'i
ij P i;
In this context, we would be guided by Jogendra Mohanty v.
ir fi i State of Orissa, 1979 (If SLR 892land K. Nirmalinandan v.% M. .■ I # '■ L ■ ''.'i Divakaran, 1989 (5) SLR 422 (Kerf wherein the HonTjle ^Courts had ll ^ held that executive guidelines create no.rights in the officer and he is^not entitled to, rely on the guidelines to .challenge .the order of transfer.
i' :
r
Further, in K. Nirmalinandan (suprafntewaLS held'that administrative T guidelines relating to transfer do not fettentheright of the Government to 3-
:: ' ii
transfer a Government servant in the public interest., v.
• T r* f f- • ? C $
5 f
In Varadha Rao (supra) the Honble„ Apex Court ^observed to;the i
v » 'f ■ ' l ? y b
following effect:-
i t ;■ n t! v * ■ !•' . * i : :1 u The norms enunciated by Government for the guidance of its; officers in \. the matter of regulating transfers are more in the mature of guidelines to the officers who order transfer in the exigencies of: administration thanrvesting of any immunity from transfer in the Government servants.". r Accordingly, when the services ofralRulmonologist are in demand in '.
. hi r;
the extended health facility, the applicant cannot disparage such , M „ .
requirements by holding the status* ofhMDDC, !Haldiadn question, by ' ■ r U i:
i' observing that the said Unit has no enhanced workload or is not subject X to any exigencies. In this, we wouldkbe: guided by the ratio, in K.B. fi Shukla v? Union of India; 1979 (2)JsiR'si (SC^whereih the Hon^ble I -rtfl r £■ Apex Court has held that the Govemmentealone il^best suited to judge as If1'! . f f v * * V to the existence of exigencies of such atServicfe requiringsappointment by A. i ;..
v•
h5
transfer. i
r-
Accordingly, we would hold that^the respondent :authorities were j'.s : • the best judge to decide on the eventslfthat led to* the administrative fill i exigencies and in calling for the serviceroMhe applicant therein.;
r
bkX' MLHi t I
M V
¥
r
v-
i fM t i aV.
# r -1
m
u.m I f3"
■■ \i f
f:
?.
f.
u.
H
1\
rHIi t e
ti
r P- ftt,
v «;■ fr
'
l-
Slli
1:1
i
t-
* f;
:
v «-
h
V ( I:
t
I -• 9 ii
- i-
i V
4 16 o.a. 350.00683.2020
(d) The applicant has also advanced ^the location of her spouse as a ground by virtue of DOP&T O.M. dated.30.9.2009 to,agitate her plea that i. t' V > she is entitled to remain in the same station asdienspouse; i.
We would herein refer to Akshya ; Kumar Beura v. Director Higher Education, 1991-Lab 1C 2T90 (Ori-DB) wherein the Hon^ble Court had ..held the plea of separation transfer and the consequent hardship principle will have "no applicationrwhereuthe husband and wife are not under the same master i.e; :: in two ,; different educational ! i i V institutions.
In this case, while the: applicant isra serving IMO at ESIC, Joka/.her husband is^pursuing higher studies atiCalcutta Medical College on study leave. An incumbent under;- study leaveucannpt claim to be posted for ' ' , * * discharge of his duties in rainy particular; .■stationr^ hence; the guidelines contained in DOP&T O.M. dated 301912009 ;will ceaserto apply, duly i supported by ratio contained in Askhya^Kumar Beura (supra); - in case 4 K .■ of the applicant. ) i r i-
(e) The applicant has also que stioned^her"transfer "based on her claim that as eS- Post Graduate;v she would deserve timmunity from being * i 5 i transferred to extended centres and healthriacilities.
While deliberating on'the subjectrbf preeminences of the; present transfer, the Honble High Court of Calcutta in C.C. Kar (Dr,) v.-State of ■;
West Bengal, 1986 (2) SLR 251 (CaVDB);hsL±he\d as foUows:- . t 1 r *• r « if degree of pre-Eminence in a Post-graduateidiscipline be relevant factor for testing validity or otherwise of an order transferring a post-graduate teacher, the Court would be an unenviable position;of pronouncing upon the merits of a post-graduate teaching staff whom the government might attempt to transfer elsewhere. In our view, it is not for thercourt to decide-whether public interest would.be better served by retaining him in'theLsaid Post-graduate Institute or C: . <"■ :■ < it i !.
* '; ^;
!
;■
;•
: • ■
i.
r:
'CE5''J
'
17 o.a. 350.00683:2020S' t
V k {!
I
by transferring him to .an under graduate Institute.'When such"transfer is based upon a policy decision of the Government the Courtrniay not .review :
the L propriety of formulation of such an executive'pc&icyi:n 1 P Accordingly, the applicant's claim: to immunity on grounds of her Post Graduate clarification also fails; particularly; as :the respondents have clarified that the rotational transfer policy does not exclude Post i : f: i* 1', , Graduates from the ambit-of transfer, arid, as a matter of course,, other ■ V ^ ' "f Cv tf c i, • post graduates have been transferred to MDDC, Haldia.
•w'» " v t1 'i ,
7. The applicant has challenged her transfer on the primary grounds of co-locational posting with her spouse,^application of the moratorium on rotational transferduring the pandemic, her .pre-eminence on account of her Post Graduate1 qualificatiom^as welte.as non-justification of E V . ■' i l' A k \
- •, ) r administrative exigencies.^ • L V 1-
y ! We find, however, .that the respondents have routed her rotational c ^r ' ' "■ ^ ■ t- , W ?; 1 ■ ;■ * . i transfer-on the recommendation of the Fairness Committee. That, there is a pressing need of a Pulmonologistvat MDDC, Haldia, justifying an ■' i r, ?■ administrative emergency. That, pdst igraduates, arernot exempt jfrom rotational transfer, and, also the riact that the applicant's spouse admittedly, being on study leave, p.bP8Tsv0.M. dated 30.9.2009 is not applicable to the applicant. It is also'ri6ted: that the applicant's tenure to f V ! her transferred post would only be*f6rra.period:of one year.
K. ... ;
< • 1 "i ,
8. Accordingly, the applicant's challenge, neither being substantiated • 4 f by infraction of professed norms of transfer nor on robust satisfaction of any mklafide, fails to merit attention iri:.tepnsj;of the settled ratio, of WK.
;■ ^ i' « r : ;;
Singh (supra), AbanifKanta Rayifsupra) arid S.Xr. Abbasi(supra). The applicant's insistence': on continuing: to function at ESIC, Joka is . T ' : , r: r i. r' t ! t 1 i-
:
t n / t t t ;
•• ' .«
v VT:
1. r
4
v ■ ■ A
i.
r---'
i... i.-; v i
4
• if
j,
il ■i
i i
' u
,1 -
^ V •
i:
? ft mu, i I! I-!?; »
«
* 18 o.a.350:qp|g2020.f 5 i%' r-
l *1 ;
I ft
%t if! f t i: I
Vs
I '
controverted by the ratio i 5 * f t f ?related judgments. 9
i I ft ■ I ?
9. Accordingly, her claiitr fails afidiffielOfAvrs di^rriissedson merit*.# j« * * » i fti ^ SMI ? |: l i II.
Interim order dated 10B.2OSO sti^sivkc kted! .1 f;
f ■if-
I1 I
0
A
f Iit i !
i
ij ;; (
There will be no ordersfon costs:^ ii | I
#r
V It
4
R
4
1/ ?i * I .. Ay-. i
f i
i * >;
f i f ,!
e * ;
k
WfBidisfia Banerjee) |j r r (Dr. Nandtta Chatterjee) || 5'i tifudic&U Members I t i Administrative Member || t i i -It 3 i {rf 4 f [■;
i t
SP L; i i f
i if# f f i
V
i
* t-
* "fti I t i i l
i ?- V
<»
•V
5
If I f f
i
Js !
t.
.4fi
*
i II i* i rn ; *r-
4 If ■ \ < i
»:
S- if *
hi f-v ti
If f-l •
.1
4
t
■i
■tia lI
S.'
l-i »
i f ! f!
I 5
#
i^
i
A
* * fi I f
f{
i- =.t| * 1
>5
- i
/fi ,5
i $
4
f if
iI !■
4 f
5 a
*
3 '■
i
f ;;
4 I4 f
f
[]■
(!:
f *
i r
f £9
f
ij
it
ii 1Ii £ J i i
»
•r * # r#
i 3r
*?
r it i
4
ft
if m {i
I 1i 5
4 5F i
1 i «
i » ■ v f f 1
Sr:
»} • i 4 I
i: ■
$■; •At* '
i:
p *
f ft tt:|§. 1
7 1 • S ¥HI ' il i
fy 4
i) i* JT;
I [
It iI if ; *
i a
t •5 ! ?! I I
5
i
Ii
ilP* J.1
I M D
?
'1
I rim
in ;
r
:
y t* ft'
s r
j
&
i fi 11
X. »' a
& S'
f 4^1 i ii.
kill; 1
I t
>
41 ir(
4 VJ
i i ;2
Jr1 if ?•
f 5
I £ r.
E
$ rr i i'
' it
i •1.'^
t
4 v sS i
If Kl 1I
4: * • £ H
I I !-!
f '
: : i' 1; f. 3' ( !■:
t!,: I 4 *
i
.fl'1
: i. r;
'Sil'i
■f
iil ?.r
i * 4
s
r i j■ r
i il ii
% 1 j
i
3
<9 fi
! i tf *•
i aii i
ii
III •3 i - I f