Disposed

Shakuntla Kishta v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Oct 2011CWP/7379/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a transfer order. Relying on medical board reports, the Court directed the State to make the petitioner suitable adjustments nearby and for her to submit a representation, while allowing the interim order to be vacated.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks; State to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. Interim order vacated.

Shakuntla Kishta Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 7379 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.10.2011 ------------------------------------------------Shakuntla Kishta Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. Respondents

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. For the petitioner: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria,Asstt.A.G. No.1 to 4. For respondent No.5. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate

¶5

Justice V.K. Ahuja(Oral):

¶6

The petitioner, who is posted as a Female Health Worker, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned transfer order dated 12.7.2011, Annexure P-7, vide which the petitioner has been directed to join her duties at HSC, Ogli, District Shimla, while private respondent Smt. Sushila Dharma has been allowed to continue at HSC, Khalini, District Shimla. 2. The facts of the case are that one Smt. Rekha Sharma, who is working as Female Health Worker in HSC Malyana, had

¶7

filed a Writ Petition in this Court challenging her transfer order. The Division Bench of this Court on 19.4.2011 in CWP No.1903 of 2011, passed the

¶8

following order:-

¶9

“The Block Medical Officer, present before us, submits that there are several vacancies in 57 Health Sub Centres under her Control. The 3^rd respondent may ascertain the vacancies from Block Medical Officer and inform the Court as to whether it will be convenient to her to be adjusted in any of the vacancies. Post on 25.4.2011.”

¶10

3. The grievance of the petitioner is

¶11

that respondent No.3 Smt. Susheela Dharma in that case was to ascertain the vacancies from Block Medical Officer and

¶12

inform the Court so that she could be

¶13

adjusted in any of the vacancies. It has

¶14

been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 (the present respondent No.5) before me was to suggest the vacancies but instead of the vacancies having been pointed out by her, she was adjusted at the post of the petitioner at HSC, Khalini, District Shimla vide order dated 27.4.2011

¶15

(Annexure P2). The stand taken by the respondent-State that since private respondent No.5 Smt. Susheela Dharma was suffering from cancer and a Medical Board was constituted and accordingly she was adjusted at Khalini and the petitioner was transferred. This Court vide its order dated 13.9.2011, had asked the Director, Health Services to constitute a Board to Examine respondent No.5 and submit its report accordingly. The said report has been submitted by the Director, Health Services alongwith a copy of opinion of the Medical Board, Annexure R-2/I.

¶16

It is clear from a perusal of the

¶17

said report that private respondent is suffering from Breast Cancer and requires periodical examination and according the order was passed by the respondents for joining of the private respondent at HSC, Khalini does not call for any interference by this Court regarding grievance of the private respondent. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, she as per the opinion of the Medical Board, Annexure P5 that she is suffering from old LBF Cuse PIVD Ln-5/L5S and further she was advised

¶18

to avoid rough and prolong journey and walking. Accordingly keeping in view the opinion of the Medical Board, she should be suitable adjusted in the nearby area considering her medical report.

¶19

The petitioner is at liberty to

¶20

make a detailed representation in this regard to respondent No.2 within two

¶21

weeks from today and the Director, Health Services shall pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the

¶22

representation. Interim order, if any, shall stands vacated. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be compelled to

¶23

join the transferred station and she shall be entitled to take appropriate leave as per the rules.

¶24

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending

¶25

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

Copy Dasti .

Shakuntla Kishta v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntla Kishta v. State

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

Similar cases

Mast Ram Vs State

Maya Dutt Attri Vs Lekh Ram

Maya Devi Vs Dc Kangra

Bhola Nath Vs State

Chaudhary Bakery Vs Garg Flour Mill Ltd.

Jagdeep Chandel Vs State