Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Sukharam vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 23 August, 2018
ai I Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 0.A. No. 365/2018 Reserved on: 09.08.2018 Date of decision: 23-8-2-\g: Hon'ble Mr. Suresh Kumar Monga, Member (3) Hon'ble mr. A.Mukhopadhaya, Member (A) Kharam s/o Shri Ramu Ram aged about 32 years, R/o ot ur, Post Lichala, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur village 608" the post of Staff Nurse, i (Ral): at present working on the post 0 a urse, in ESIC | Hospital, Jaipur. mode _. Applicant. (BY advocate: Shri Vivek Choudhary) Versus Director General, ESIC Head Quarter Panchdeep 1- Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi-110001. | Regional Director, Regional Office, ESIC, Panchdeep 2: Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur-302001. ; Medical Superintendent, ESIC Model Hospital, Laxmi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)-302006. ..Respondents. wy advocate: Shri +.P.Sharma) ORDER
ria mMukhopadhaya, Member (A) per"
This Original Application, (OA), arises from the transfer of f cus . VA ne applicant from the position of Staff Nurse at the ESIC Model i ¢ yospital Jaipur to the same position at the ESIC Hospital ahi wadi. The applicant contends that he is the only caregiver of { (OA No.365/2018) (2) nis disabled and aged mother who had earlier donated a kidney er daughter and after donation of the same, she is suffering to h mental disorders which are continuously under treatment in ESIC Model Hospital, Jaipur. He states that he has been satisfactorily at Jaipur and there is no complaint against He e further states that he is not surplus staff at his present of posting and contends that the post of Staff Nurse is nota e ost and there is no administrative exigency to transfer om his present place of posting. He emphasises mother is continuously under treatment in Jaipur and adequate facility available for the treatment of his ere he has been transferred, i.e. Bhiwadi. reply and additional affidavit, the respondents om thei nd that the ap the Bhiwadi ESIC Hospital in which some new facilities plicant has been transferred in the public en ated thus requiring the services of both Specialists, pa and staff Nurses. The applicant has been serving at SIC c Model Hospital, Jaipur since 05.09.2013 and thus does ek ene any substantial grounds against the transfer which is an of his service. The respondents further state that a ciden® erat ;
a in ; medical facilities are available at the ESIC Hospital self for the treatment of the applicant's mother as niwad! "
. oc ctors have now been posted there and therefore, in r the applicant cannot take shelter of any supposed lack (OA No.365/2018) (3) of medical facilities for his mother to seek cancellation of the transfer. They also contend that the applicant did not exhaust the departmental remedies available to him prior to filing of the present OA and therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the present OA deserves to be rejected for this reason alone. Finally, they e also drawn attention to the fact that the applicant stands hav relieved from his post in Jaipur vide order dated 07.07.2018 and therefore this OA is also rendered infructuous on that count. EF 3, © | heard: The app! 'on as detailed above. The respondents' counsel in his unsel for both the applicant and the respondents were icant's counsel reiterated the points made in the yments contended that there is no force in the applicant's ment as requisite medical facilities for treatment of his arg other are avail een posted and his case is not covered by the DoP&T OM able at the ESIC Hospital Bhiwadi itself where he m nas P ~ No.420 ain disabilities , vers for certain disab from routine and rotational 11/3/2014-Estt.(Res) dated 05.01.2016, which exempts cave! ransfers. The not find any specific mention in the DOP&T circular and ; ndition i i ;
, medical co of his mother depicted in the OA does enerefore the applicant does not have any reasonable ground for Y exemption from the transfer in question.
4. We have carefully examined the material placed on record as well as the arguments of opposing counsel. While the DoP&T (OA No.365/2018) (4) OM of 95.01.2016, while being referred to, has not been formally brought on record in this OA, it is not disputed that the applicant's case is not covered by this OM and thus this cannot be the basis on which he can seek exemption from transfer in the manner available to a caregiver whose family members suffer m ce ertain disabilities. In a catena of cases the Hon''ble fro supreme Court and the High Courts have laid down that where rransfers are an inherent part of the general service conditions of n employee: there should be no intervention with the same S there is sO a me specific violation of rules or policy or unles Vi gence of some kind of malafide. This is not the case here e ;
rhe plicant has been serving at Jaipur since 05.09.2013 and nas nus Now served Jaipur for almost 7 years continuously. As ic nerefore we find no force in the applicant's arguments for S ° tion from the present transfer to Bhiwadi. ex s accordingly the OA is dismissed for want of merit. 6 there will be no order as to costs. muknopauer~* p-
( 'Member (A) Member (J) j«d r/ (Lacon CRUTECHU rrongay" aa