Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 3052 of 2024, whereby the petition filed by the appellant, has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order of transfer dated 30.06.2023, relieving order dated 01.07.2023 and order dated 05.01.2024, whereby her representation was rejected.

3. The petition was filed with the submissions that the appellant was suffering from paralysis and was under treatment in District Lakhimpur Kheri and on account of her physical condition, she should not have been transferred by the respondents. On appellant approaching the Court, she was directed to get herself examined by a medical board, however, apparently on account of communication gap, she did not appear before the medical board.

4. Learned Single Judge, on perusing the record, came to the conclusion that the plea raised by the appellant regarding her suffering from paralysis was factually incorrect as the medical treatment documents produced by her indicated that she was suffering from Parkinson's disease. Learned Single Judge after analyzing the claim made and the indications made in the medical documents, reached a conclusion that the appellant had approached the Court on a patently false plea and consequently, dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that despite filing of the documents indicating the appellant suffering from Parkinson's disease, it was inadvertently/wrongly indicated in the petition that she was suffering from paralysis. Further submissions have been made that on account of the fact that the intimation for constitution of the medical board was sent by registered post only a day before, which was received by the appellant after three days of the date fixed, she could not appear before the medical board. However, it is submitted that even if the appellant is suffering from Parkinson's disease, only on account of wrong mention of the disease as paralysis, the petition could not have been dismissed and the imposition of cost also is not justified.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

8. There is obvious discrepancy between the documents and the averments made in the petition. Irrespective of the reason quo the said discrepancy, as in the circular dated 07.06.2023, there is no mention of any medical condition based on which the employee can continue to stay at one place, it cannot be said that by indicating the disease paralysis instead of Parkinson's disease, the appellant attempted to take some advantage by wrong indication of the said fact. However, insofar as the claim made in the petition seeking to continue to stay at the place of present posting is concerned, there is nothing in the circular dated 07.06.2023, which is only in the nature of guideline based on which the appellant can continue to stay at the place of present posting.