LAWS(TRIP)-2020-9-17

RANJIT DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On September 24, 2020
Ranjit Deb Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is serving as a UDC under the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura. By the impugned order, he has been transferred from his present place of posting at AGMC & GBP hospital, Agartala to the District hospital, Khowai under the Medical Superintendent of the said District hospital. He does not contend that his post is not transferable or that he is subjected to frequent transfers in the past, nor does he attribute mala fides on part of the authorities. In fact, counsel for the petitioner agreed that the petitioner has been working at Agartala since several years, probably since inception of his joining the Government service. The case of the petitioner is based on his extreme hardship and Government policy of treating the cases of principle care-giver of a person suffering from disability.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a 17 year old son of the petitioner met with an accident in the year 2018, which has left him 100% disabled. He suffers from total immobility, is totally bed ridden. His mental faculties including speech and hearing are impaired. He cannot move even with support. He is under constant care of the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner had, therefore, filed a representation dated 18.06.2020 in which these aspects were brought to the notice of the Director of Health Services. However, the representation came to be rejected by a brief order dated 13.07.2020 recording that after careful consideration of the related facts and administrative expediency, the representation cannot be accepted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the Government of India policy circulated vide O.M. dated 08.10.2018, which inter alia provides that the Government employee who is a care-giver of a dependent daughter or son or parents, spouse, brother or sister with specified disability, as defined in Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 would be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer, of course subject to administrative constraints.