Delhi High Court
Lt.Col.Pramod Nath vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 August, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 5929/2011
LT.COL.PRAMOD NATH ..... Petitioner
Through: Major K.Ramesh and Ms.Rachna
Ramesh, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar and Mr.Asit
Tiwari, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. We have repeatedly observed that howsoever brief may be the reasons, orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal must indicate what has weighed with the Tribunal.
2. The necessity for giving reasons, howsoever brief, in a judicial order is that the Appellate or the Revisional or the Authority exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of India has the benefit of what weighed in the mind of the Fora and this W.P.(C) No.5929/2011 Page 1 of 5 helps in the administration of justice, for the reason it fast- tracks adjudication.
3. Impugned order dated 12.8.2011 reads as under-
"We have heard both the sides on the interim prayer. Considering the facts of the case, without observing anything on the merits of the case, we do not consider it fit to grant interim relief. Hence, interim prayer is rejected. Put up case on 15.09.2011 at 2 pm before the same bench. Copy of order be given dasti to the applicant as prayed."
4. Why has the Tribunal held that it does not consider it fit to grant interim relief to the petitioner? No reason is forthcoming.
5. This has led the petitioner to rush to this Court for the reason before the Tribunal the petitioner was questioning his supersession as also transfer from Delhi to Shillong. He wanted interim relief qua his transfer.
6. On the issue of petitioner being transferred to Shillong he pleaded that on being superseded he made a request to be voluntarily retired which was declined and by way of retaliation he was transferred to Shillong. Proof of mala fide pleaded is that petitioner has specialization in Oncopathology and the Military Hospital at Shillong does not have any facility for Oncopathology. Petitioner states that he has no problem to be transferred at any place provided there is work for him in the field of his specialization. Petitioner relies upon documents which would show that the Army spent considerable money to make the petitioner a specialist in Oncopathology. Petitioner W.P.(C) No.5929/2011 Page 2 of 5 highlights that the Command Hospital at Chandimandir does not have specialist in Oncopathology and draws attention to various documents which show that suspected cases of cancer or where pathological analysis is required with reference to Oncopathology, slides are being sent to Delhi. In a nut shell, petitioner states that what else would be proof of mala fide other than proof of the fact that a person is being sent to a far off place where there is no work for him.
7. Respondents dispute the stand taken by the petitioner and urged that as per the policy guideline dated 16.1.2004, even super specialty officers have to be posted at centres where super specialty is not available. It is highlighted that para 10 of the policy says that specialist officers will be posted alternatively to hospitals not having the respective super specialty centre and then to a super specialty centre. Respondents highlight that the petitioner has remained in Delhi for more than 3 years i.e. the normal tenure of posting. Respondents also rely upon an undertaking given by the petitioner that notwithstanding he being sent for specialized training he would be liable to be posted to work in any broad specialty.
8. We would have expected the Tribunal to have noted the rival submissions and given a prima facie opinion.
9. Our problem would be that the issue of interim orders to be passed has been kept open by the Tribunal and the date has been notified beyond the date when the petitioner had to join at Shillong. Obviously, the petitioner had to rush to this W.P.(C) No.5929/2011 Page 3 of 5 Court for the reason he was losing the battle by default before the Tribunal. Our problem would be that any expression by us at this stage would be bound to influence the Tribunal. We would have wished the Tribunal having decided with reasons whether ad-interim stay was required to be granted or not.
10. Be that as it may, without being treated as a final expression on the merits of the controversy we are prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner would not be entitled to any ad-interim stay against transfer and for which our reasons are:-
(i) While being sent for super specialty training the petitioner gave a written undertaking that he would be willing to serve in a hospital where there is a broad specialty. Being a pathologist, notwithstanding petitioner having super specialization in Oncopathology, petitioner's services can be used in any hospital where a Path Lab exists.
(ii) Undisputably at the Command Hospital in Shillong a Path Lab exists.
(iii) The transfer policy clearly envisages that those with super specialties would be alternatively posted in hospitals not having the requisite super specialty centre.
11. We make it once again clear that our 3 reasons are purely tentative and the Tribunal would decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by us.
12. We wish and hope that in the future we are not to be encountered with such an order.
W.P.(C) No.5929/2011 Page 4 of 513. Writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE AUGUST 18, 2011 mm W.P.(C) No.5929/2011 Page 5 of 5