S SEKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner has already undergone two major bypass surgery, therefore, if the petitioner is accommodated in the nearby place, it would be easy for the petitioner to carry on his medical treatment from the same hospital, namely, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE petitioner, while working as a Town Planning Officer Grade - II in Gobichettipalayam Municipality, has undergone two bypass surgeries. This fact was known to the respondent department, as he has already produced the relevant medical certificates for having suffered Coronary disorder. Having known the fact that the petitioner has undergone two bypass surgeries successively, instead of respecting their own G.O.Ms.No.10, P&AR Department, dated 17.01.1994, which states that Administrative General Transfers should be made only between April 1st and May 31st of the year, to avoid dislocation and hardships to the family of the government servants to accommodate their children in the schools and colleges, the respondent, without applying the guidelines stipulated in the said GO, wrongly issued the impugned order transferring the petitioner from Gobichettipalayam Municipality to Dharmapuri Municipality, only on the ground that the petitioner has completed three years period in Gobichettipalayam Municipality. THE said impugned order, he contended, is contrary to the policy decision of the Government imposing ban orders on all general transfers, which is evident from the Government letter No.5304/S/2010-1, dated 13.04.2010. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that according to the GO as well as the letter No.5304/S/2010-1, dated 13.04.2010, all general transfers made on administrative reasons, should be passed only between 1st of April and 31st of May of every year. As the respondents have not followed the guidelines mentioned in the said GO, by terming the impugned order as per-se-illegal, sought for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) RECORDING the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court, without mentioning anything on the merits of the transfer order, directs the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.08.2010, sympathetically either in the same place or in any nearby place, by taking into account that the petitioner has already undergone two major operations, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.