ARVIND MEHROTRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Dr. Arvind Mehrotra challenges his transfer from the post of Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Mussorie, district Dehradun to the post of Senior Pathologist, Government Joint Hospital, Roorkee, district Haridwar. The impugned order (Annexure -6) was passed by the first respondent -Principal Secretary, Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttaranchal on 8.4.2005. Though the petitioner had applied for stay of operation of the impugned order, the prayer for interim relief was rejected on 26.4.2005. Respondents have filed counter -affidavits and the petitioner has filed rejoinder -affidavit.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Upadhayaya, learned standing counsel for the State of Uttaranchal who appeared for the respondents. We have also perused the relevant files made available by the learned standing counsel.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned transfer is illegal for the reason that the petitioner was subjected to transfer when he had only less than three years to retire from service. According to the learned counsel, as per the guidelines for transfer issued by the Government, unless there are special circumstances, a Government employee cannot be transferred if he is due to retire within a period of three years. In support of the contention learned counsel invited our attention to Annexure -5 order issued by the Irrigation Department referring to such a policy. In the counter -affidavits filed by the respondents, they have not disputed the existence of such guidelines or policy. However, learned standing counsel contended that Annexure -5 order produced by the petitioner relates only to the Irrigation Department and that it is not a general order applicable to other departments. But, in the absence of specific denial in the counter -affidavits of the respondents, we may presume that there are guidelines issued by the Government stipulating that unless there are special circumstances, a government employee should not be transferred if he is due to retire within a period of three years. The impugned transfer of the petitioner was in view of the special circumstances stated in the letter dated 29.1.2005 of the fourth respondent and was recommended by the second respondent. The note file produced before the Court also disclosed that the first respondent passed the impugned order only in view of the said special circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order violated the guidelines stated to have been issued by the Government.