Allowed

Union of India v. J.Kalpana

Madras HC20 Nov 2018WP/25528/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions filed by ESIC challenging transfer orders of Nursing Sisters. The Court, considering the hardship to respondents having minor children, directed the petitioner not to disturb the status quo until the end of the academic year (30.04.2019) and disposed of connected tribunal cases.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to disturb respondents until 30.04.2019; order of transfer effective from 01.05.2019; pending tribunal applications disposed of.

Union of India Vs J.Kalpana — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.11.2018

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.25528, 25540 and 25548 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.29694, 29696, 29707, 29710, 29713 and 29715 of 2018

¶6

Union of India rep. by its
Additional Commissioner & Regional
Director,
Employees State Insurance
Corporation (ESIC),
Regional Office,
143, Sterling Road, Chennai - 34. .. Petitioner in
all the W.Ps
Vs
J.Kalpana .. Respondent in
W.P.No.25528 of 2018
V.Sasi .. Respondent in
W.P.No.25540 of 2018
M.Punitha Jeyaseeli .. Respondent in
W.P.No.25548 of 2018

¶7

Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the interim order dated 17.08.2018 passed in O.A.Nos.310/01108/2018, 310/01107/2018 and 310/01109/2018 and the consequential orders dated 12.09.2018 passed in M.A.Nos.310/00520/2018, 310/00519/2018 and 310/00521/2018 in O.A.Nos.310/01108/2018, 310/01107/2018 and 310/01109/2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chennai and quash the same.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Addl. Solicitor General assisted by Mr.K.Prabakar in all the W.Ps

¶10

For Respondent .. Mr.R.Malaichamy in all the W.Ps

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶13

Though these writ petitions have been filed against the interim order granted by the Tribunal, by consent, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the main cases themselves.

¶14

2.In all these cases, the respondents are working as Nursing Sisters. The respondents challenged the transfer orders transferring them from Chennai to Tirunelveli. It appears that these orders have been challenged on the primary ground that during the academic year, any transfer would case huge inconvenience, especially the respondents being ladies having minor children.

¶15

3.Considering the above, we asked the learned Additional Solicitor General to find out as to whether the respondents can be accommodated at least till the end of academic year. The learned Additional Solicitor General, on instructions, would submit that only two vacancies are available and therefore, without prejudice to the contentions on merits, two of the respondents in all the three writ petitions can be accommodated till the academic year – on or before 30.04.2019 and the third one cannot be accommodated.

¶16

4.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that even insofar as the third person viz., V.Sasi, the representation itself would show that she is having two kids, one male and one female aged about ten and four years respectively. They are studying in 6^th and 4^th standards respectively. It would be impossible to get admission at Tirunelveli.

¶17

5.Considering the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all the writ petitions by directing the petitioner not to disturb the respondents till the end of April, 2019 so that the academic year would get over. This order is passed by taking into consideration the plight of the children of the respondents

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

in all the three cases. We are quite conscious of the fact that an order of transfer, being incidental to service, cannot be challenged by subjecting it to judicial review except on the ground of jurisdiction and malafides, both of which are not available.

¶20

6.Accordingly, we dispose of these writ petitions by directing the petitioner not to disturb the respondents in all the three writ petitions till the end of April, 2019. We also make it clear that from 01.05.2019 onwards, the respondents will have to work at Tirunelveli. In view of the same, the Original Applications pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai also stand disposed of. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the respondents would join in the transferred place on or before 01.05.2019 stands recorded. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench at Chennai.

¶22

+3cc to Mr.K.Prabakar, Advocate sr.no.79016 to 79018 +3cc to Mr.R.Malaichamy, Advocate sr.no.78938

¶23

W.P.Nos.25528, 25540 and 25548 of 2018

¶24

nr 30/11/2018

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Union of India v. J.Kalpana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. J.Kalpana

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

C.Maragathavalli Vs v.Jeyabharathi

R.M. Bhuvaneswari Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

The Madurantakam Co. Op Sugar Vs R.Raman (Deceased)

Minor R.Gaberiyel Vs The Tahsildar

Parvathy Kailasam Vs The Registrar

K.Ranganathan Vs the Secretary to Govt