Dismissed

Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. Principal Secre.,Dept. of M.andH. Jpr. andOR

Rajasthan HC17 Apr 2015CW/3895/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order granting administrative and financial powers to Respondent No. 3 despite a stay on his transfer. Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that withdrawing powers during the stay would amount to contempt and no fault existed in the authority's order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the tribunal to pass appropriate orders.

Bhagwati Prasad Verma Vs Principal Secre.,Dept. of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3895/2015

¶6

Bhagwati Prasad Verma

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Medical & Health & ors.

¶9

Date of Order : : 17.04.2015

¶10

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶11

Mr. P.R. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

<><><><>

¶13

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) :-

¶14

The petitioner herein is challenging the Order dated 27.03.2015 vide which the respondent No. 3 – Dr. Heeralal Tabiyar has been given all the administrative and financial powers along with all drawing and disbursement powers for the post of C.M.H.O., Banswara.

¶15

While praying for setting aside the impugned order, it is contended that the petitioner is holding the post of C.M.H.O. Banswara w.e.f. 22.10.2014. It is further stated that once the petitioner has been appointed as C.M.H.O., any other person cannot be given the administrative and financial powers as per Rule 3 of the General Finance and Account Rules. The respondent No. 3 was earlier holding the charge of the post of C.M.H.O. Banswara. He was transferred by the same order as the petitioner i.e. Annexure-2 dated 21.10.2014 as Senior

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Banswara. The respondent No. 3 challenged his transfer order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The tribunal vide Order dated 19.12.2014 stayed the operation of the transfer order dated 21.10.2014 qua the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has been impleaded as one of the necessary respondents in the said appeal before the tribunal.

¶18

The respondent No. 3 was holding the charge of the post of C.M.H.O. Banswara prior to his transfer and before the petitioner was posted as C.M.H.O. The said order of transfer has been stayed by the tribunal. The petitioner instead of bringing the said fact to the notice of the tribunal, where he is impleaded as one of the respondents, has rushed to this Court. The order of transfer having been stayed, withdrawing of any of the financial powers which respondent No. 3 was holding prior to transfer will amount to contempt. Thus, no fault can be found with the order passed by the authority during the pendency of the order of stay passed by the tribunal.

¶19

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

However, the above order shall not come in the way of the tribunal to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶21

(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.

¶22

Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. Principal Secre.,Dept. of M.andH. Jpr. andOR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. Principal Secre.,Dept. of M.andH. Jpr. andOR

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

Hem Raj Vs State

Gulab Ram and Anr. Vs State

Rafiq Khan Vs State

Baldeo Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Dr. Nidhi Singhal and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State and Ors.