Dismissed

Lt. Col. Rossamma R v. the Chief of the Army Staff

Kerala HC28 Mar 2022WP(C)/4091/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a Lt. Col. Military Nursing Service officer challenging her transfer due to medical grounds. Court dismissed transfer challenge despite sympathy, noting a previous deferment. Directed authorities to decide on her premature retirement application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner to pursue premature retirement request. Competent authority directed to pass order on the application within one month.

Lt. Col. Rossamma R Vs the Chief of the Army… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4091 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

LT. COL. ROSSAMMA R
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O LATE DANIEL, N R-20845 A, G D MATRON, INHS
SANJIVANI, NAVAL BASE (PO) KOCHI-682 004, NOW RESIDING
AT QUARTERS 616, KATARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE (PO) KOCHI-682
004,
BY ADVS.
P.K.MADHUSOODANAN
P.M.BINOY KRISHNA

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY) ADJUTANT GENERALS BRANCH, L BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MEDICAL SERVICES (ARMY) INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), ADJUTANT GENERALS BRANCH, O/O THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MEDICAL SERVICES (ARMY), 4B DEFENCE OFFICE COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR A BLOCK, K.G. MARGH, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (MILITARY NURSING SERVICE), 4-B, DEFENCE OFFICE COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, A-BLOCK, K.G.MARGH, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

4 BRIGADIER, MILITARY NURSING SERVICE, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE-908541, C/O 56 APO.

¶13

5 THE COMMANDING OFFICER, INHS SANJIVANI, NAVAL BASE (PO) KOCHI-682 004. BY ADVS. B.S.SURESH KUMAR MANU S., ASG OF INDIA

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

CGC DAYASINDHU SREEHARI N.S.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 4091 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2022

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, transferring her from INHS, Sanjivani, Kochi to the Command Hospital (Northern Command) Udhampur in Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner is working in INHS, Sanjivani as GD Matron in the rank of Lt.Col since 16.10.2019. On being served with Ext.P6, the petitioner submitted a request to defer her transfer by one year, pointing out that she is suffering from various ailments like multiple fibroid, endometriosis, multiple cyst in the uterus and ovary and she has been advised to undergo urgent surgery. The martial dispute which had led to the petitioner approaching the Family Court at Ernakulam and the continuation of her daughter's education were also projected as grounds for deferment of transfer. The respondents considered the request and passed Ext.P10 order deferring the petitioner's transfer up to March, 2022 on compassionate grounds. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to defer the transfer by one year as requested by the petitioner.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 4091 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's transfer to Udhampur will severely affect her already weak physical condition. It is submitted that the Original petition filed by the petitioner before the Family Court was not be taken up due to the restricted functioning of the Court and is now posted to 30.4.2022. It is submitted that absence of the petitioner will result in the court passing adverse orders against her. It is contended that the petitioner has been transferred during the general transfer and there is no administrative exigency, requiring the petitioner's service at Udhampur immediately. Further, vacancies are available at INHS, Sanjivani and persons with much longer service are being allowed to continue. Finally, it is pointed out that the petitioner has submitted a request for premature retirement and she may at least be allowed to continue at the present station till a decision is taken thereon.

¶25

3.Learned ASG submitted that maximum leniency has been shown to the petitioner and going by the transfer policy, a transfer can be deferred only for a maximum of three months. It is contended that the decision to transfer a personnel is taken by the establishment after considering various aspects and unless the

¶26

WP(C) NO. 4091 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

decision is shown to be patently illegal or issued by an improper authority, this should not interfere with the order in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article226.

¶29

4.Even though I have utmost sympathy towards the petitioner, that would not justify interference with the order of transfer. More so, when the respondents have deferred the petitioner's transfer up to 31.3.2022. The contention that persons with more service are allowed to continue and the petitioner's service is not required at Udhampur immediately are not matters which could compel this Court to interfere with the order. As regards the petitioner's request for premature retirement, learned

¶30

ASG points that the matter is under consideration of the appropriate authority and a decision will be taken in accordance with the rules and regulations. Further if the application for premature retirement is to be considered, the Officer should first join at the transferred station.

¶31

The facts being as above, I am constrained to dismiss the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue her request for premature retirement before the appropriate authority. Needless to say, the petitioner having submitted Ext.P11 request, the

¶32

WP(C) NO. 4091 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

concerned authority should take a decision thereon expeditiously, particularly in view of the petitioner's medical condition. Therefore, it is directed that order on Ext.P11 should be passed by the competent authority within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 4091 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4091/2022

¶40

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ULTRA SOUND SCAN` `PETITIONER, ISSUE` `KOCHI`	`REPORT DATED 5.4.2021 OF THE` `OF ABDOMEN OF THE` `D FROM LAKESHORE HOSPITAL,`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DOCTORS OF INHS S` `AFTER THE PETITIO` `ULTRASONOGRAPHY.`	`FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT` `ANJIVANI, DATED 27.9.2021,` `NER HAS UNDERGONE`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DOCTORS TREATING` `ADVICES AND PRESC`	`FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT` `THE PETITIONER AND THEIR` `RIPTIONS DATED 24.7.2021`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DOCTORS TREATING` `ADVICES AND PRESC`	`FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT` `THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR` `RIPTIONS DATED 3.10.2021`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DOCTORS TREATING` `ADVICES AND PRESC`	`FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT` `THE PETITIONER AND THEIR` `RIPTIONS DATED 5.1.2022`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SERVICE OFFICERS` `THE 2ND RESPONDEN`	`POSTING OF MILITARY NURSING` `DATED 30.9.2021 ISSUED FROM` `T`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `25.4.2018 ISSUED` `(RELEVANT PAGES)`	`LATEST POSTING POLICY DATED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE` `CHANNEL TO THE 5T`	`APPLICATION DATED 4.10.2021` `PETITIONER, THROUGH PROPER` `H RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT ON EXT`	`REMARKS OF THE 5TH` `P8`
`Exhibit P10`	`TUE COPY OF THE M` `REPLY TO EXT P8 I` `GRANTING DEFERMEN` `2022`	`ESSAGE DATED 31.12.2021 IN` `SSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `T OF TRANSFER TILL MARCH,`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RETIREMENT DATED` `PETITIONER`	`APPLICATION FOR PREMATURE` `10.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 15.1.2022,`	`REPLY LETTER VIDE NO 100/1,` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THROUGH PROPER CH` `RESPONDENT TO REC`	`REQUEST DATED 25.1.2022` `ANNEL BEFORE THE 5TH` `ONSIDER EXT P12 AND FORWARD`

¶41

WP(C) NO. 4091 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

ET P11 BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES,
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶44

Exhibit P14

¶45

Exhibit P15

¶46

TRUE COPY OF THE MONTHLY STRENGTH RETURN
(3008): OFFICER OF MNS FOR THE MONTH OF
DECEMBER AS ON 2359 HRS, DATED 31.12.2021
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 12.10.2021

Lt. Col. Rossamma R v. the Chief of the Army Staff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lt. Col. Rossamma R v. the Chief of the Army Staff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Pazhassi Rubbers (P) Ltd. Vs the Executive Engineer,Kseb, Thalassery

Sheeba S. M. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Sukumari Amma Vs Dr. Preetha Soman

Lizy O. Vs Union of India

Thulasi M.K. Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Sheeja.I Vs State of Kerala