SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Parul Kush Jain & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10842 of 2023, CM Appls. 42032 of 2023 & 42033 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate, for the Respondent 1 and 2.
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Govt. Pleader and Ms. Akanksha Chandhok, Advocate, for the Respondent 3.

Compliance with policy guidelines and issuance of NOC for deputation

Headnote:

violation of policy guidelines - Central Administrative Tribunal order - The court directed the respondents to refer the applicant and her daughter to a Medical Board constituted by a Central Agency, and based on the Medical Certificate, make a decision on the inter-cadre transfer. The petitioner State of West Bengal was directed to issue NOC to enable the deputation of the respondents.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner State of West Bengal challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the referral of the applicant and her daughter to a Medical Board for assessment and decision on inter-cadre transfer.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the petitioner to issue NOC for the deputation of the respondents, in compliance with the Tribunal's order.

Issues: Violation of policy guidelines, inter-cadre transfer, issuance of NOC for deputation

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's order for referral to a Medical Board and directed the petitioner to issue NOC for the deputation of the respondents.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the application was dismissed as infructuous.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 42032/2023

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10842/2023

1. The challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner State of West Bengal is to the order dated April 22, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 594/2022 whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the OA filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by stating in paragraphs 6 to 8 as under:

"6. In our considered opinion there is a violation of the policy guidelines laid down by DOP&T. The respondents could themselves have referred the case of applicant No.1 and her younger daughter to a medical board constituted by a Central Agency. Such Board should have specialists from the concerned field, as prescribed in the aforesaid Guidelines.

7. In view of the foregoing, the respondents are directed to refer the applicant No.1 and her younger daughter to a Medical Board, constituted by a Central Agency, preferably at Delhi, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the basis of the Medical Certificate, to be issued by the Board, an appropriate decision will be taken on the inter-cadre transfer of the applicants and the same be communicated to the applicants within a period of one month thereafter.

8. With the above directions, the OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

2. At the outset, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states, the impugned order stands implemented inasmuch as upon communication sent by the respondent No.3 Government of India, respondent No.1 and her daughter had appeared before the Medical Board, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, constituted in terms of the Rules. Mr. Chhibber has drawn our attention to an affidavit filed by respondent No.3 in a Contempt Petition before the Tribunal wherein the respondent No.3 has stated as under:

"5. That the Medical Board was held on 03.06.2022 at Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi to examine Ms. Parul Kush Jain and her daughter Ms. Meera Jain along with available medical records. The Medical Board was constituted comprising of ENT, Skin and respiratory medicine side. The opinion of the Medical Board is given below:

a. The ENT side has opined to avoid humid environment and stay in dry area to prevent recurrence and complication of allergic rhinitis including damage to hearing. No diagnostic test was found recorded.

b. The Skin side has opined that there is possibility that there could be some environmental factor viz allergens, high humidity levels which could be aggravating her skin condition. This side has further opined that change of environment could possibly eliminate triggers like certain allergens and high humidity levels. They have suggested to move to a place with dry air and should be helpful in improving patient's skin condition.

c. Respiratory medicine side has commented that Ms. Parul Kush Jain narrated history of cough and breathlessness after going to West Bengal. PFT, X Ray records and Total lg E levels done in Safdarjung Hospital are normal. They opined that she appears to be benefitted after removal from that environment."

3. According to Mr. Chibber, the State of Punjab has given its concurrence for taking the respondent No.1 on deputation for a period of three years. Further the State of Haryana has also agreed to take respondent No.2, husband of respondent No.1 on deputation for a period of three years. He submits that as per the Rules, the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are required to be reassessed after three years by respondent No.3 and till such time, State of West Bengal cannot interdict the deputation of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to State of Punjab and State of Haryana respectively.

4. Ms. Madhumita Battacharjee, learned counsel appearing for petitioner State of West Bengal though agreeing with the Rule position would submit that the Court may give a direction that in view of the ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top