Uma Shankar Pathak vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 8 July, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Uma Shankar Pathak vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 8 July, 2010
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CWJC No.9074 of 2010
          1. UMA SHANKAR PATHAK, S/O LATE HARI SHANKAR PATHAK, R/O
          VILLAGE / MOHALLA TEEN LALTEN CHOWK, CRISTIAN QUARTER,
          CHURCH ROAD, P.S. BETTIAH, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN.
                                      VERSUS
          1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, PATNA,
          BIHAR.
          2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NEW
          SECRETARIAT, PATNA.
          3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF
          BIHAR, PATNA.
          4. THE CIVIL SURGEON, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH.
          5. THE CIVIL SURGEON, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI.

                                         -----------

For the Petitioner : Shri Shashi Anugrah Narain.

Shri Pathak Dhananjay Kumar.

                  For the State      : AC to AAG-V.
                                         ------------

02   08.07.2010              The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-6, passed by the

Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar. That

is a notification with regard to transfer of petitioner issued on

12.04.2010. The case of the petitioner is that he was in West

Champaran when transfer order was issued on 30.06.2009 to East

Champaran. He went to East Champaran and joined. Within 10

months this transfer order has been issued. Ordinarily, the

petitioner submits that he would not have challenged the transfer

order but the transfer gives a reason for petitioner to be transferred.

Annexure-6, the impugned order states that the transfer order

transferring the petitioner from West Champaran to East Champaran

on 30.06.2009 was faulty because petitioner has been posted in

Rohtas with effect from 01.10.1997 and, the petitioner has not

joined at Rohtas and has remained absent without permission since

then. He is, therefore, directed to join Rohtas immediately.
-2-

Shri Shashi Anugrah Narain, learned Senior Counsel

challenges these findings in the notification. He submits that being

in government service he has no objection to be transferred to

Rohtas, but being transferred with the allegation that petitioner has

been posted to Rohtas in 1997, where he had not joined and is

absent unauthorizedly since then is a very serious allegation, which

would affect his career. The same is factually incorrect.

Having considered the matter, in my view, as the

petitioner is being directed to join Rohtas, the petitioner should first

join his assignment. So far as petitioner’s allegation is concerned,

that the statements made in the notification about his previous

posting and unauthorized absent being wrong, the petitioner would

make a detailed representation in this regard, giving all factual

aspects to the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of

Bihar within 15 days after joining at Rohtas. The Secretary,

Department of Health would then examine the records and, if

necessary and asked for, the petitioner may be heard in the matter

and he would pass appropriate orders with regard to the state of

affairs as between the 1997 and up to date. The order would be a

considered order and petitioner if aggrieved by that order may take

his remedies as he may be advised.

With these observations and directions, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

Trivedi                    (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *