Dr. Harish Chandra Pant vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 November, 2017

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Dr. Harish Chandra Pant vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 November, 2017

K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner challenges order dated 15.06.2017 and order dated 24.10.2017 Annexure-1 and Annexure-10 respectively. By the first mentioned order, petitioner has been transferred from the Combined Hospital Ramnagar to Combined Hospital, Dharchula, District Pithoragarh. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition against Annexure-1 order, by which he had been transferred. This Court, by permitting him to file a representation, directed the same to be considered. Annexure-10 is the next impugned order passed on the representation rejecting the same. In the order rejecting the representation, it has been, inter alia, stated as follows:

"In order of the above it is apprises that Dr. Harish Chandra Pant posted in District Almora from dated 18-6- 1997 to 15-12-2000, dated 15-12-2000 to 31-072012 at Ramnagar, Nainital dated 1-8-2012 to 19-11-2014 Kashipur, Udhamsingh Nagar, dated 20-11-2014 to 06- 02-2015 District Hospital Pithoragarh and 07-02-2015 to till date Combined Hospital Ramnagar (almost 03 year 09 months in inaccessible area 16 year 03 month in accessible area).

In addition to above it is also apprises that Dr. Chandra Pant, Senior Medical Officer, Combined Hospital Ramnagar, Nainital posted in Chamoli from dated 17-01-2003 to 09-08-2003, dated 10-08-2003 to 18-07-2008 at Kaladungi, Nainital dated 19-07-2008 to till date in combined Hospital Ramnagar Nainital (almost 2 07 month in inaccessible area and 13 year 10 month in accessible area).

In this regard it is apprises that as per the transfer policy no. 1622/XXVIII-2/01(25) 2012 dated 19-9-2014 issued for the Medical Officer appointed under P.M.H.H. cadre both the medical officers been transferred by the government level taking into their long service in inaccessible Area.

As such taking into consideration of aforesaid fact and circumstances Dr. Harish Chandra Pant, Joint Director Grade representation dated 6-9-2017 found forceless / unreasonable therefore the representation of Dr. Pant for cancelation of transfer is not acceptable as such the representation of Dr. Pant is decided hereby."

2. We heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.

3. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the policy provides for certain norms; they have not been followed in the matter of his transfer. He himself, in fact, submits that there are only 17 surgeons in whole of the State of Uttarakhand in Government medical services. Petitioner has been posted at Dharchula, which, according to him, is a very remote area. We have noticed the findings about the postings of the petitioner at various places. We do not find any injustice as such, which appeals to us to interfere in the matter. It may be true that some of the norms, as for instance, the transfer should be to a place, which is connected by Rail and having a particular distance, have been violated. The norms are to be followed as far as possible. The norms are not cast in stone. There must be a fair play for the Government as various aspects are to be considered. Even it is not specifically stated by the petitioner that there are surgeons, who are junior to him and yet considering all the norms together, the petitioner has been discriminated against. We do not find any such case. Private interest of a Government employee in governmental action conforming to the norms must also be balanced against the public interest, in securing the services of the doctors at inaccessible areas, particularly the doctors, who have specialization in surgery. Petitioner has a case that there is no Anaesthetist even and 3 there is no post of Joint Director. As far as the post of Anaesthetist is concerned, we do agree with the petitioner that when the services of a surgeon is being made available in an inaccessible area, it becomes the duty of the Government to make available all necessary facilities so that the specialized service of a surgeon is best utilized. Also all other facilities, which may be necessary for the optimal utilization of a surgeon like the petitioner should be made available at Dharchula. As far as the availability of the post of Joint Director is concerned, it is denied that there is no post of Joint Director. Even if such the post is not available there, we make it clear that all necessary formalities will be complied with. We make it clear that the petitioner will not be denied the benefits, which are due to him as per his post.

4. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the orders. Accordingly the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, this will be subject to the observations, which we have made regarding making available all the facilities so that the services of the petitioner can be optimally utilized and making available the post of Anaesthetist if the post is not there already. We give ten days' time from today for the petitioner to join at the transferred place.

          (V.K. Bist, J.)                      (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
           10.11.2017                            10.11.2017
Rathour

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court