Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.23 11:36:47 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:3186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 460 of 2025 Dr. Jyoti Mukhopadhyay W/o Dr. B. Mukhopadhyay Aged About 48 Years, presently posted as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, ... Petitioner District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the issuance of the order dated 08.01.2025 (ANNEXURE P-1) for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ / order quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.01.2025 (ANNEXURE P-1) to the extent it relates to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner is presently posted as “Veterinary Assistant Surgeon” at Patan, District Durg. The petitioner has discharged the duties on the said post to the best of her ability without there being any complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been issued any charge-sheet nor has the petitioner ever been issued any show cause notice concerning the duties discharged by the petitioner on the said post. As a sudden shock and surprise, petitioner was issued the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Patan, District Durg to Ramchandrapur (Ramanujganj), District Balrampur. The petitioner had already served in scheduled area and vide the impugned transfer order, the petitioner is again sought to be sent to the scheduled area. The petitioner is a cancer patient who is under continuous supervision and periodic medical 3 examination on account of the said disease and her medical and physical condition require her to remain under constant medical assistance, for which she was previously under treatment from TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, and is presently consulting BALCO Medical Centre. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Further case of the petitioner, is that husband of the petitioner, namely Dr. B. Mukhopadhyay, who is also a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, is suffering from a life threatening disease called Anti JO-1 Antisynthetase Syndrome with Interstitial Lung Disease. The said disease is a rare chronic autoimmune disease that affects multiple organ system. As a result of the same, the petitioner is also required to take care of her husband who is under continuous medical care and supervision of AIIMS Raipur. There is no medical facility except AIIMS Raipur for treatment of the said disease. The impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) therefore seems to have been issued in a most highhanded and illegal manner without having due regard to the statutory provisions of law, which needs to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is challenging the transfer order dated 08.01.2025 whereby she has been transferred from Patan, District Durg to Ramchandrapur (Ramanujganj), District Balrampur on the ground that petitioner is suffering from cancer and she is taking regular treatment at BALCO Medical Centre. Raipur, Chhattisgarh and it will be difficult 4 for her to join at Balrampur where such medical facility is not available. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court
Decision
to the medical document, which is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P/3, which is a certificate issued by the TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, in which it has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner is suffering from “Right Breast Cancer”, for which she underwent right breast conservation surgery and she has been advised “Adjuvant Chemotherapy (6 cycles) followed by external Radiotherapy”. The petitioner has also filed recent report of BALCO Medical Centre, Raipur as Annexure P/5 regarding his mammography bilateral. He also submits that the petitioner is undergoing treatment at BALCO Medical Centre. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, which is specialized hospital for such treatment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (ANNEXURE P-1) has been issued in the mid-session and the same shall have an adverse consequence for the petitioner since the daughter of the petitioner, namely Ku. Sumedha Mukhopadhyay is presently starting in Class XI and is admitted to Delhi Public School, Bhilai and at this juncture transferring the services of the petitioner to Ramchandrapur would lead to a serious disruption in the academic pursuit of the daughter of the petitioner, who is already 5 registered with the CBSE for the XII Board Examination for the next academic session 2025-26 from Delhi Public School, Bhilai. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition submitting that impugned order is well merited. 8. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the documents available in record. 9. From perusal of the contents made in the writ petition as well as documents annexed with the writ petition, it seems that the petitioner is suffering from “Right Breast Cancer”, as such, transfer order by which she has been transferred from Patan, District Durg to Ramchandrapur (Ramanujganj), District Balrampur is not justified. It is an admitted position that petitioner has been posted at Durg on her own request on the basis of her medical ailment. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as further considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities should consider the case of the petitioner on the ground of medical exigency and if the petitioner files a representation along with relevant document, which has been annexed in this petition, the respondent authorities, i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to consider the same in a pragmatic manner and to pass an appropriate order. 6 11. The petitioner is directed to file a representation along with copy of this order before the respondent authorities within a period of 10 days’ and the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the representation within a further period of four weeks’ from the date of the representation filed by the petitioner. 12. Till then, impugned transfer order dated 08.01.2025 shall remain stayed in respect of the petitioner. It is made clear that if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, she is at liberty to approach this Court again within some short span. 13. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh