SPA/190/2009 of SMT MEENA SINGH and ANOTHER Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS on 31 December 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No. 190 of 2009

Smt. Svita Pathak

.……… Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents.

Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.

J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral)

Through the instant special appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 16.09.2009, disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 901 of 2009.

In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant had impugned the order of her transfer dated 31.07.2009. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that at some stages the respondent had asserted that the aforesaid order had been passed in public interest, whereas at certain other places, it was mentioned that the impugned transfer order had been passed on administrative grounds.

It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that although the appellant may have been posted at Udham Singh Nagar ( from where she had been transferred) for a continuous period of above three years, there are large number of staff nurses belonging to the same cadre, who have been posted at Udham Singh Nagar, for more than ten years, and as such it would be improper to accept that the order of transfer has been passed on administrative ground.

We have considered all the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the background of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the counter affidavit reveals that at one stage two doctors and a nurse, stationed in the delivery ward, had made a complaint against the appellant with a request to the matron of the hospital in question that she may not be stationed in the labour room on account of the fact that she does not obey orders, and rather argues with them. With the counter affidavit, is enclosed a communication dated 20-6-2009 addressed to the appellant, seeking her explanation. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid communication was never received by her, endorsement recorded thereon clearly reveals that when the aforesaid communication was sent to her residence, she was not available.

An order of transfer is not an order passed as a matter of penal consequences. An order of transfer may be passed in administrative exigency. The impugned order in the present case seems to be one such order where the appellant was required to be removed from the place of her posting on account of her attitude. Thus viewed, we find no justification whatsoever, so as to interfere with the impugned order of transfer passed against the appellant.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is dismissed, as we have not been able to find any infirmity in the impugned order rendered by the learned Single Judge.

Despite aforesaid, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to forward the last pay certificate of the appellant to the place of her transfer, forthwith and definitely before the expiry of 15.01.2010.

Disposed of accordingly.

( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ( J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 31.12.2009

ISB