Disposed

Dr. Neeru Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2019WPSB/83/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's transfer from accessible Rishikesh to remote Chinyalisaur. While noting the petitioner's severe neurological condition, the Court held it cannot decide on postings and directed the State Government to consider her representations for exemption or retention under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations seeking transfer/retention on medical grounds and pass orders within one month.

Dr. Neeru Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 83 of 2019

¶3

Dr. Neeru Gupta ...Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents

¶4

Present: Mr. Mayank Rajan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Dated: 06^th May, 2019

¶6

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

¶7

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

¶8

Heard Sri Mayank Rajan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶9

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked questioning the order of transfer of the petitioner from Rishikesh to Chinyalisaur in Uttarkashi District. The petitioner is an Associate Professor serving in the Directorate of Higher Education, Uttarakhand from 21.04.1998. She worked at Kashipur from 21.04.1988 to 10.07.2005 i.e. for a period of seven years and two months and, thereafter, from 11.07.2005 till 31.05.2018 (for a period of twelve years eight months and twenty days) at Rishikesh. The petitioner has been working in accessible areas, for the past more than two decades ever since 1998, without having worked, during this period, in a remote area.

¶10

¶11

The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, makes it compulsory for those who have worked for ten years or more in an accessible area to be transferred to a remote area. While the petitioner claims that she is unwell, and has been suffering from a Neurological disorder, the petitioner has, instead of seeking her retention in close proximity to the place where adequate medical facilities are available, chosen to array the fourth respondent as a respondent contending that his transfer to Haldwani is contrary to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017.

¶12

It defies reason that the petitioner, who has been working in an accessible area for more than two decades, should turn around and question the transfer of the fourth respondent contending that, since he was transferred to a remote area one year ago, he should not have been brought back to an accessible area one year later.

¶13

While we were initially inclined to dismiss the writ petition as we were satisfied that a person, who has been working in an accessible area for more than two decades, has been rightly transferred to a remote area, in terms of the provisions of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, it is submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that she is required to undergo Neurosurgery in July, 2019; and her physical condition is such that she is required to stay in close proximity to hospitals where adequate facilities for treatment of neurological disorders are available; and her transfer, to Chinyalisaur in Uttarkashi District, would result in

¶14

¶15

her not having access to medical facilities for treatment of her neurological condition.

¶16

In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated that, she was admitted at AIIMS, New Delhi, and her transfer from Kashipur to Rishikesh was effected in view of her medical condition, so that she could be posted at a place in proximity to the Himalayan Institute Hospital, Jollygrant, Dehradun, where Neurologists are available for providing treatment; she was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi where she underwent medical treatment; she was admitted to AIIMS, New Delhi on 15.05.2009, in the Neurosurgery Department, for undergoing various workups before surgery; as her children are young, she declined to undergo the surgery, and she was discharged at her request on 20.05.2009; she has been under treatment ever since for epilepsy, and has been regularly treated at AIIMS, New Delhi, Max Hospital, Dehradun and AIIMS, Rishikesh; in 2015 she suffered a fall, which lead to a tear in her spine at location L5-S1 junction, as diagnosed by AIIMS, Rishikesh, wherein she was asked by the Consultant to undergo MRI; the tear in her spine has restricted her movement only to certain postures; on 25.10.2018 she was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi by the Consultant at AIIMS, Rishikesh, after the MRI reports suggested presence of Cingulate Gyrus Cavernoma which was likely to be Tuberculoma; she approached AIIMS, New Delhi and underwent clinical processes, and thereafter received an OPD registration; she was given prescription medicines by the Consultant Neurologist at AIIMS, New Delhi; on 08.02.2019 she was asked to undergo Magnetoencephalography (MEG) at the

¶17

¶18

National Brain Research Centre, Manesar, Gurugram; she underwent Magnetoencephalography (MEG) on 08.02.2019; she was recalled on 07.03.2019 after the MEG reports were analysed by the Neurologists and Neurosurgeons at AIIMS, New Delhi; and she has been given admission for Neurosurgery on 16.07.2019.

¶19

If the contents of the supplementary affidavit are true then the petitioner’s case, undoubtedly, requires sympathetic consideration as her condition does appear to necessitate her being posted in close proximity to a Hospital where competent Neurologists are available.

¶20

While the petitioner’s case undoubtedly necessitates consideration on medical grounds, this Court would not take upon itself the task of determining when and where an employee should be posted, for these are all matters for the Government to consider in accordance with the provisions of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017. Suffice it to observe that, since the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, itself provides for exemption to those who are unwell, or suffer from serious ailments, it is but appropriate that the petitioner’s request, to be transferred and posted to a place where adequate medical facilities are available, be considered by the State Government. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the authorities on 01.10.2018, 08.01.2019 & 08.02.2019, copies of which are filed along with the writ petition.

¶21

¶22

Suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct the first respondent to consider the representations already submitted by the petitioner (copies of which are enclosed along with the writ petition) seeking transfer/retention on medical ground, and to pass appropriate orders thereupon, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶23

The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)

¶26

06.05.2019

¶27

A.kaur/Shiksha

Dr. Neeru Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Neeru Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Gulab Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Trilok Singh Karki Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dhirendra Dhali @ Virendra Nath Dhali and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Commissioner Of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Shri Satyabrata Swain

Commissioner Of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Surya Polypack Private Ltd.

Kamlapati Sanwal Vs State of Uttarakhand