Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/238/2010 of B.K.SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS on 30 December 2010
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 238 of 2010 B.K. Sharma ……… Appellant. Versus Union of India and others ……… Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Standing Counsel (Union of India) for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 238 of 2010
B.K. Sharma
Versus
………
Appellant.
Union of India and others
……… Respondents
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Standing Counsel (Union of India) for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Date of Judgment: 30.12.2010
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL)
In December, 2010 appellant filed a writ petition challenging his transfer from Dehradun to Kolkata effected on 23[rd] January, 2009. Principally on that ground, the writ petition has been dismissed.
2. It appears that after 24[th] February, 2009, the appellant did not report for duty, either at his transferred post or at where the appellant was working before his transfer. He, however, continued to apply to the office, where he was working before his transfer, for medical leave. It appears that in such circumstances, steps were taken on 23[rd] October, 2009 to constitute a Medical Board for checking the physical condition of the appellant for the purpose of ascertaining whether he will be able to perform his duties at all, and if yes, how soon. On 11[th] November, 2010, appellant was directed to report to President, State Medical Board and Director General, Medical and Health Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The records produced before us no where suggest that the appellant complied with the said direction and, if complied with, what was the result of the finding. Therefore, it appears to us that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the delay in approaching the writ Court has not at all been attempted to be explained can be called in question.
3. We, accordingly, refuse to admit the appeal. The same is dismissed.
Amit
(V.K. Bist, J.)
30.12.2010
(Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
30.12.2010