Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/303/2009 of MADHUBALA DHEEMAN Vs UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS on 31 December 2009

COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 303 of 2009 Madhubala Dheeman, D/o Sri Jyoti Swaroop, Presently working as Sister, Government Joint Hospital, Roorkee. …..……Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi. 2.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 303 of 2009

Madhubala Dheeman, D/o Sri Jyoti Swaroop, Presently working as Sister, Government Joint Hospital, Roorkee.

…..……Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary,

Public Grievances and Pension,

New Delhi.

2. State of Uttarakhand through

Secretary, Medical Health and

Family Welfare, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Dehradun.

3. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Medical Health and Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lucknow.

4. Director General of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand, Dehradun.

5. Chief Medical Superintendent, Government Joint Hospital, Roorkee. Government Joint Hospital, Roorkee.

………Respondents

Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Rawal, Advocate, present for the respondent No.1. Mr. K.C. Tewari, Standing Counsel, present for the respondents No.2, 4 & 5. Mrs. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.), present for the respondent No.3.

Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to relieve the petitioner for State of Uttar Pradesh, as she has been allocated said State by the Government of India.

Page 1 of 2

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Sister (Nurse)with Medical & Health Department of the State. It is not disputed that she has been allocated State of Uttar Pradesh by the Government of India under Section 73 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that neither the petitioner is being relieved for the State of Uttar Pradesh nor she is being given promotion in the State of Uttarakhand. It is further stated that though earlier petitioner wanted to change her option, but now she is not inclined to press the same.

4. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this writ petition is summarily disposed of directing the respondents No.2, 4 & 5 to relieve the petitioner for the State of Uttar Pradesh as per Government Order No. 701/XXVIII-3-2009-226/2003T.C.-II, dated 28[th] August 2009, as the petitioner has withdrawn the consent for mutual transfer with Usha Devi, within a period of one month from the date certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned.(Interim Relief Application No.11614 of 2009 also stands disposed of).

NS

(V.K. Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 31.12.2009

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead