Disposed

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 May 2024SAW/555/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench disposed of written appeals filed by two senior doctors contesting transfer orders that resulted in both holding the same post. Following a Single Judge's direction, the Bench directed the State to pass fresh speaking orders after considering representations from both parties within twenty days.

What did the court decide?

The Special Application was disposed of with directions to the State to pass fresh speaking orders regarding the placement of both doctors after considering representations within twenty days.

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Paliwal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22932-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 555/2024

¶4

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Paliwal S/o Shri Roop Chand Paliwal, Aged About 44 Years, Village And Post Odhaniya, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Joint Secretary, Medical And Health Services (Group 2), Secretariat, Jaipur

¶9

Director (Public Health), Department Of Medical And Health, Health Bhawan, Jaipur

¶10

Dr Ravi Prakash Mathur, Director (Public Health), Department Of Medical And Health, Health Bhawan, Jaipur

¶11

The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Zone Jodhpur, Jodhpur

¶12

Dr. Babulal Bunkar S/o Shri Jeewan Ram Bunkar, Aged About 61 Years, Principal Chief Medical Officer, R/o 101, Indira Colony, Jaisalmer, Presently Holding The Post Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaisalmer (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, DSG
		Mr. Prakash Raika
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
		Mr. Yashpal Khileree

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶16

Order

¶17

21/05/2024

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy is similar to the controversy decided by this Court

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[2024:RJ-JD:22932-DB]

¶21

[SAW-555/2024]

¶22

vide order dated 4.4.2024 in D.B.Spl.Appl.Writ No.405/2024 in Dr. Shri Krishan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The operative portion of the order reads as under;

¶23

“6. This Court after evaluating the factual matrix of the case finds that the initial order of APO passed upon respondent no.6 on 19.02.2024 for the post of Block Chief Medical Officer, Bhopalgarh (Jodhpur) was in existence, and thus the post was vacant on 22.02.2024 when 171 doctors were transferred and incidentally the present appellant got transferred on the same post of Block Chief Medical Officer, Bhopalgarh (Jodhpur). This Court finds that the multiple writ petitions between the employees have resulted into an anomaly whereby two Doctors which is otherwise precious resource for a common citizen are holding the same post, thus, depriving the State of the valuable service of one of their Doctors.

¶24

This Court finds that there was nothing to prevent the appellant to come on the post of Block Chief Medical Officer, Bhopalgarh (Jodhpur) on 22.02.2024, when the respondent no.6 was already under Awaiting Posting Order and the adjudication before the learned Single Judge of this Court had not taken place. The stay of APO order on 26.02.2024 without the appellant having been a party further aggravated the anomaly because now both the persons were claiming that they are working on the same post, however, another order was passed by the State whereby the pay and disbursement authority was given to the appellant, which was again challenged by the respondent no.6 , in which an interim order was passed on 14.03.2024 giving an order for status-quo as on 21.02.2024. This Court also finds that in the chronology of the events and dates, the order passed by the State on 22.02.2024 transferring 171 Medical Officers incidentally one of which joined the post stood vacant on count of an order keeping the respondent no.6 under APO, cannot be undone by passing a status-quo order and thus cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. In light of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 having granted interim order status quo anti, causing anomaly of two Doctors claiming holding the same post i.e. Block Chief Medical Officer, Bhopalgarh (Jodhpur) is quashed and setaside.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such

¶26

order was challenged before Hon’ble the Apex Court in SLP No.

¶27

[2024:RJ-JD:22932-DB]

¶28

[SAW-555/2024]

¶29

(3 of 5)

¶30

10425/2024 by the private respondents Dr. Dilip Singh Choudhary. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the order kept intact and the writ petition was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn accordingly.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case also these are two senior doctors contesting their respective transfer orders in the same kind of impugned order which was part of adjudication in Dr. Shri Krishan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the impugned stay orders, the senior doctors are functioning on the same post at CMHO Jaisalmer. Counsel submits that the appellant is working on the post of CMHO Jaisalmer as he was transferred vide order dated 22.2.2024, whereas the private respondent No.6 was operating as CMHO, Jaisalmer previously. Learned counsel submits that in case the petition is disposed of in the light of the earlier judgment of Dr. Shri Krishan, the State shall hear both the parties and pass fresh orders within ten days from today regarding placement of both the parties.

¶32

This Court is conscious of the fact that while the State reels under the crisis of the less number of doctors whereas on the other hand two senior doctors want to work at same post of CMHO, Jaisalmer, such contest between doctors is leading to the waste of the precious resources of the medical health sector meant for common citizen who shall be deprived of their valuable services.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent at present is holding the post of CMHO, Jaisalmer and

¶34

(4 of 5)

¶35

[2024:RJ-JD:22932-DB]

¶36

[SAW-555/2024]

¶37

performing the duty of DDO. Counsel for the respondents submits that similar order has been passed by the Hon’ble Court in D.B.Spl.Appl.Writ No.393/2024 in Dr. Ashok Aditya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Counsel for the respondents submits that existing order of learned Single Judge is in his favour which is Annex.10 which is order dated 1.3.2024 passed in the case of Dr. Babulal Bunkar Vs. State ofRaj. & Ors. in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3045/2024, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder;

¶38

Heard learned counsels and perused the material available on record.

¶39

It is not disputed on record that earlier, vide order dated 14.07.2023, the petitioner was kept APO and the said order was stayed on 20.07.2023. Meaning thereby, the petitioner remained on his previous place of posting. However, vide the interim order dated 20.07.2023, the respondent Department was granted liberty to provide appropriate place of posting to the petitioner. Admittedly, till date, no fresh place of posting has been assigned to the petitioner subsequent to the said order, Now, vide the order impugned, the private respondent has been sought to be transferred at the place of posting of the petitioner, without assigning any reason and without specifying the place of posting of the petitioner. Meaning thereby, he has again been kept APO without any specific reason been assigned.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to justify the corrigendum dated 27.02.2024 on the touchstone of the basis principles of law.

¶41

In view of the above facts, the present writ petition is disposed of with the specific direction that the petitioner shall be permitted to rejoin his present place of posting, forthwith. However, the department shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders strictly in terms of law.

¶42

Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶43

[2024:RJ-JD:22932-DB]

¶44

[SAW-555/2024]

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the light of above said order (Annex.10), the order dated 22.3.2024 was also withdrawn by the State Government. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Single Judge has also decided the writ petition of the respondents while giving liberty to pass fresh orders strictly in terms of law. Once, such order has been passed, this Court considered it appropriate to direct the respondents State to pass fresh orders for both the doctors strictly in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both of them to file fresh representation within seven days from today. The State shall pass speaking order after consideration of the representation strictly in accordance with law within twenty days from today.

¶47

The Spl. Appl. Writ is disposed of accordingly. In view of the above, Hon’ble Single Judge is requested to dispose of the writ petition also in aforesaid terms.

¶48

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶49

147-Arti/-

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Similar cases

Narpat Singh Vs the Union of India

M/S Raja Ram Trading Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohinuddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Singh Vs Union of India

Deepak Kumar Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan