Disposed

Dr. Renu Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024SPLA/18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order directing the posting of a different officer as CMS and the transfer of both the appellant and private respondent to districts other than western U.P., finding no reason why their services could not be utilized in more needy districts despite their long tenure in the current location.

What did the court decide?

Interim order directing transfer of appellant and private respondent outside western U.P. and posting of another officer as CMS in Gautam Budh Nagar.

Dr. Renu Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow)

¶3

¶4

Court No. - 2

¶5

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 18 of 2024

¶6

Appellant :- Dr. Renu Agarwal

¶7

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Radhika Singh,Satjyot Chawla Dang

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Prasad Gupta

¶9

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶10

(1) Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nishchoy Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶11

(2) This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.7185 of 2023. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the respondent no.3 challenging his transfer order on various grounds including the long stay of the appellant herein at Gautam Budh Nagar for almost 27 years as mentioned therein, a fact which is being disputed though it is being reasserted by learned counsel for the private respondent herein.

¶12

(3) On being asked as to what is that stand of the State Government because before the writ court the State Government has supported the appellant herein by saying that

¶13

Page No.2

¶14

she had worked efficiently during Covid-19 pandemic at Gautam Budh Nagar, therefore, she has been posted at the same place. Sri Anil Kumar Singh Bisen, learned Addl. C.S.C. has produced few papers running into six pages which according to him is the complete file pertaining to transfer in question. It is said that the file is in e-mode. He reiterates the stand of the State Government as before the writ court.

¶15

(4) Prima facie, what we find in this case is that contrary to the general stand of the State in matters of transfer both before the Single Judge Bench and before the Division Benches when a transfer order is challenged is that the person has remained posted at a particular place for years, therefore, the employee or officer does not have any right to continue and on this ground such transfers are justified and this is one of the major grounds to oppose a petition, rightly so, because the law is settled that nobody has any indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular place for long but, in this case, the stand of the State is that the posting of the appellant at Gautam Budh Nagar cannot be faulted merely because she has already remained posted there for long because of her performance during Covid-19 pandemic. Prima facie, we fail to understand as to why the benefit of this efficiency of the appellant, if it is so, should be available only to the residents of Gautam Budh Nagar and why she cannot serve in other districts which are more backward than Gautam Budh Nagar where medical facilities are more deficient than at Gautam Budh Nagar. On being asked, there is no answer from the State, at least, as of now.

¶16

Page No.3

¶17

(5) We have also perused the printout of a file pertaining to transfer of the appellant at Gautam Budh Nagar. The noting mentions that post of CMS is vacant at 200 Bed Joint Hospital, Gautam Budh Nagar. It then goes on to mention-‟bl laca/k esa funsZ'k izkIr gq, gSa fd mDr fjDr in ij Mk0 jsuw vxzoky ¼o0dz0&8934½ dks rSukr fd;s tkus dk izLrko izLrqr fd;k tk;A˝ File does not reveal who had given this direction, which is intriguing. We say no more at this stage. We have also perused subsequent notings. Single transfer of the appellant was ordered.

¶18

(6) We have perused the documents annexed at page no.197 which are the details of postings of the appellant and according to it, the appellant was posted at Ghaziabad which is nearby Gautam Budh Nagar from 08.03.1996 to 20.08.2000. From 20.08.2000 to 05.07.2002, she has remained posted as C.M.O., Gautam Budh Nagar. Thereafter, from 06.07.2002 to 31.07.2007, she has remained posted at District Combined Hospital Gautam Budh Nagar (DGH). From 01.04.2008 to 16.01.2019, she has been posted at Noida Authority on deputation which is a place nearby Gautam Budh Nagar. From 16.01.2019 to 17.07.2021, she has again remained posted as Senior Consultant, District Combined Hospital, Gautam Budh Nagar. Thereafter, she has remained posted as Senior Consultant at District Female Hospital, Meerut from 17.07.2021 to 08.01.2022 which is also in the same area i.e. western U.P. She has thereafter been posted as ACMO, Ghaziabad from 08.01.2022 to 13.06.2023 and then again, from 13.06.2023, she has again been posted as CMS at District Combined Hospital, Gautam Budh Nagar. Prior to 08.03.1996, she was posted at

¶19

Page No.4

¶20

Banda from 12.12.1991 to 23.08.1994 and at Raebareli from 25.08.1994 to 01.03.1996. The aforesaid would demonstrate that 08.03.1996 to till date, she has remained posted in western U.P. in and around Gautambudh Nagar (near Delhi). On being asked, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that her husband was earlier in service at Delhi. On being further asked as to his present posting, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 submitted that after his retirement, he has been reappointed and is now posted under the appellant at Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶21

(7) What comes out from the aforesaid is as already stated the appellant has remained posted in and around Ghaziabad and Gautam Budh Nagar continuously since 1996.

¶22

(8) As regards respondent no.3, he was only given the charge of CMS, Gautam Budh Nagar and therefore, that by itself would not give any indefeasible right in his favour. Nevertheless, he relies upon a policy dated 14.06.2011 and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Civil Misc Writ Petition No.4284 of 2009 [Dr. Lallan Prasad vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] and the statement recorded therein of the Principal Secretary to contend that the person senior most would be appointed as CMS which according to him is his client whereas referring to the same documents it is contended by the appellants counsel that suitability/ efficiency is also to be seen. Moreover, the service details of the private respondent reveals that he has remained posted at Gautam Budh Nagar from 30.05.2015 till date.

¶23

Page No.5

¶24

(9) Thus, both the appellant and the private respondent have remained stationed at Gautam Budh Nagar or nearby it for sufficiently long time. We see no reason as to why their services cannot be utilized by the State Government in more needy districts. Therefore, in view of the above discussion as an interim measure, it is provided that some other suitable officer should be posted as C.M.S., Gautam Budh Nagar and the appellant and private respondent should be shifted elsewhere other than any district in western U.P. This is, of course, subject to further orders in this appeal.

¶25

(10) List this appeal after eight weeks for hearing.

¶26

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Shanu/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Renu Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Renu Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Allama Zameer Naqvi vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin./Addl.Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Pallning Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Ors.

Mahesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Krishna Prakash and Others vs Saurabh Singh and Others

Trideep Narayan Pandey vs Union of Bharat Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi and Others

Dr. Renu Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Secrt. Administration Deptt. Deptt. , Lko. and Another vs Sanjay Pratap Singh