Partly allowed

Manju Rani Verma v. the Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging a transfer order and cost imposition. The Court dismissed the petition on merit but set aside the cost imposed for factual discrepancy between the alleged disability and medical documents.

What did the court decide?

Cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed in the single judge court was set aside; petition dismissed on merits.

Manju Rani Verma Vs the Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38795-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 118 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Manju Rani Verma Respondent :- The Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vimal Kumar,Km. Vishwa Mohini, Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Singh, S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

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/-.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

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/-.

¶13

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.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the State made submissions that irrespective of the medical condition of the appellant, as reliance has been placed on circular dated 07.06.2023, the same does not envisage that the employees with the medical condition of suffering from Parkinson's disease would not be transferred at all and in those circumstances, irrespective of the claim made, the petition has rightly been dismissed. Submissions have also been made that looking to the conduct of the appellant and the fact that on noticing the discrepancy in the averments made in the petition and the documents, the Court offered the appellant to withdraw the petition, as the same was not withdrawn and it was insisted that the indications made were correct, the cost has rightly been imposed and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal.

¶15

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

¶16

There is obvious discrepancy between the documents and the averments made in the petition. Irrespective of the reason quo the said

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

In view of the above fact situation, though the dismissal of the writ petition cannot be faulted even on merit, we are of the opinion that the imposition of the cost is required to be made easy. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant, insofar as merit is concerned, is dismissed, however, the cost imposed by learned Single Judge by order dated 19.04.2023 is made easy.

¶20

In case, the appellant approaches at the transferred place and the post is still vacant, subject to all other conditions/requirements, she may be permitted to join at the transferred place.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 RK/Virendra

¶22

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶23

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manju Rani Verma v. the Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Rani Verma v. the Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others Vs Ram Milan Yadav

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others vs Ram Milan Yadav

Kushal Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. and Others

Ram Kumar Shukla Vs C/M Rashtriya Inter College, Ranapur , Barabanki Thru. Its Manager Sunil Kumar and Others

U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director , Lko. and Others Vs Sadhna Shukla

Jagat Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Food and Civil Supply U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others