Allahabad High Court
Manju Rani Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas ... on 19 April, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30680 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3052 of 2024 Petitioner :- Manju Rani Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 05.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, by which the representation filed by the petitioner against his transfer order has been rejected. Also under challenge is the transfer order dated 30.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, as well as the relieving order dated 01.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially by means of the order dated 30.06.2023, the petitioner had been transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to District- Pilibhit.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ-A No.6809 of 2023; In re: Manju Rani Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others before this Court. The Writ Court vide judgement and order dated 22.09.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, after considering the specific averment made in the petition that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis and is under treatment in District- Lakhimpur Kheri and therefore, she is required to be exempted from annual transfer in terms of the Government Order dated 07.06.2023, disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority, which was required to be decided by the Director of Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar, Lucknow (As corrected on 27.09.2023).
5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was called by the respondents to appear in a medical examination before a Medical Board, per which a notice was sent to the petitioner on 03.01.2024 to appear on 04.01.2024. The notice was sent by registered post and the petitioner was informed on her mobile number and whats-app as duly finds place in the order impugned dated 05.01.2024.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the registered letter has been received by the petitioner on 08.01.2024. A copy of the registered envelope has been filed as part of Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. By contending that as the letter was received late, consequently, the petitioner could not appear before the Medical Board on the date fixed, i.e., 04.01.2024 and subsequently also the petitioner was never examined by the Medical Board and the representation has been rejected vide order dated 05.01.2024.
7. The contention is that even now the petitioner is willing to appear before the Medical Board as she is suffering from paralysis as per the specific averment made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition and thus it is prayed that another opportunity be given to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel states that a perusal of the medical prescriptions that have been annexed by the petitioner in support of her illness, which have been filed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition would indicate that apart from the fact that the said prescriptions are of a private hospital, another aspect is that the said prescriptions do not indicate the alleged illness of the petitioner, i.e., "Paralysis" rather perusal of the said prescriptions indicates that the petitioner is suspected to be suffering from Parkinson's disease. Even otherwise, the prescription indicates that the petitioner is having tremors, but the said medical prescription does not indicate that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis.
9. Learned Standing Counsel also states that a perusal of the order dated 05.01.2024 would indicate that the petitioner was required to appear before the Medical Board on 04.01.2024, per which a registered letter was sent and she had also been informed on her mobile phone and on whats-app and even if the said registered letter has been received by the petitioner on 08.01.2024 yet the petitioner has failed to indicate anywhere in the petition that she did not receive any call on her mobile number or did not receive a whats-app message calling her to appear before the Medical Board and as such it is apparent that at the first instance, the petitioner failed to appear before the Medical Board on the date fixed and now has approached this Court in order to make good the said error on her part apart from the fact that the illness being indicated by the petitioner of "Paralysis" is also not borne out from the medical certificate as annexed by the petitioner.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, wherein the petitioner has challenged the transfer order on the ground of suffering from paralysis but the medical certificates annexed in support of her claim, all indicate that she is not suffering from paralysis meaning thereby the writ petition had been filed with patently false facts, the Court gave an option to Shri Sushil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. However, Shri Pathak has insisted that the Court should decide the matter on merits and as such the Court proceeds to decide the matter on merit.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and having perused the record, it emerges that the petitioner initially being aggrieved with the transfer order dated 30.06.2023 had approached this Court by filing a writ petition specifically contending before this Court that she is suffering from paralysis and is under treatment in District- Lakhimpur Kheri. Considering this, the Writ Court has disposed of the writ petition leaving it open for the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority, which was required to be decided in accordance with law.
12. In pursuance thereof, the respondents required the petitioner to appear before the three members Medical Board in order to examine the alleged illness of the petitioner. The medical board was fixed for 04.01.2024 and the petitioner was informed about the same through registered letter sent on 03.01.2024 (wrongly typed as 03.01.2023 in the order impugned), which has been received by the petitioner on 08.01.2024. The petitioner was also informed about the same on her mobile as well as by sending whats-app message. Though, the petitioner has claimed that a registered letter has been received by her on 08.01.2024 as already indicated above, yet there is no denial by the petitioner of having being called on her mobile and whats-app being sent to her to appear before the medical board on 08.01.2024.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to appear before the Medical Board on 04.01.2024 and consequently, the respondents vide order dated 05.01.2024 have rejected the representation of the petitioner.
14. The sheet anchor of the claim of the petitioner, as stands recorded earlier by this Court vide judgement and order dated 22.09.2023 as well as now in the instant petition is that the petitioner is suffering from the paralysis. The Government Order dated 07.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, categorically provides in paragraph 5 (v) that a physically handicapped person should invariably be kept free from transfer. The physical handicap of the petitioner has categorically been stated in the petition to be paralysis. The medical prescriptions filed in support thereof do not indicate anywhere that the petitioner is suffering from the paralysis rather she is suspected to be suffering from parkinson. No literature has been brought on record that the parkinson disease renders a person handicapped.
15. Even otherwise, the Taber's Cyclopedia Medical Dictionary, Edition 19 defines the Parkinson disease as "a common chronic degenerative disease of the central nervous system that produces movement disorders and changes in cognition and mood.
16. Paralysis is defined as "Loss of sensation; anesthesia, loss of purposeful movement usually as a result of neurological disease".
17. Further as per the information available on the official website of LYBRATE paralysis and parkinson have been indicated as "paralysis can happen commonly due to blood clot cutting blood supply to the brain, as the clot lyses the part of the brain will recover function. In Parkinson there is degeneration of neurons (brain cells), degenerated neurons cannot regenerate and their functions can be tried to be restored with medicines".
18. From a perusal of the aforesaid definitions of both parkinson and paralysis, it is apparent that the both the diseases are world apart, parkinson disease producing the movement disorder and changes in cognition and mood vis a vis paralysis producing loss of sensation; loss of purposeful movement usually as a result of neurological disease
19. As already indicated above, the alleged illness of the petitioner of "Paralysis" is not borne out from the medical certificates as annexed by the petitioner which do not indicate anywhere that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis rather it is indicated that she is suspected of having Parkinson's disease. Even otherwise, the medical certificate is of a private hospital which nowhere indicates about the alleged paralysis being suffered by the petitioner and on the basis of which the petitioner had filed the earlier petition as specially finds place in the order of the Writ Court. Even now, instead of having filed any prescription in support of the petitioner suffering from paralysis, all the medical prescriptions filed by the petitioner do not indicate anywhere that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis meaning thereby that the petitioner had filed the earlier petition and even this petition on totally false facts which clearly cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law.
20. Considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioner has approached this Court with patently false facts and on the basis of a concocted illness which also does not find support from the medical prescriptions, as already indicated above.
21. Keeping in the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, at the same time considering that the petitioner has approached this Court with patently false facts as such the Court is constrained to impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner for having approached the highest Court of the State with totally false and concocted facts.
22. Let the cost be deposited by the petitioner before High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee Lucknow within a month from today, failing which the said cost shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
23. After the aforesaid order had been dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not concealed any fact inasmuch as she is having a medical certificate which pertains to the paralysis. However as already indicated above, the medical certificates annexed by the petitioner do not indicate anywhere about the paralysis rather indicate about the parkinson disease and there is world of a difference between a parkinson disease and paralysis. Upon the aforesaid being dictated, Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for reduction of cost on the ground that the petitioner has not received any salary since last several months. Considering this, the cost is reduced to Rs.10,000/-.
Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Ashutosh