Dr. Suraj Kumar Singh v. Union Of India
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.521 of 2016 Dr. Suraj Kumar Singh, S/o Shri B.N. Singh, aged about 42 years, working as Sr. Medical Officer, CRPF Barni, CH, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Director General (Medical), Medical Dte, CRPF, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
3. DIG Medical, Office of Medical Supdt./DIG (Medical) CRPF, CH, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner:
Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
For Respondents:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Assistant Solicitor General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 22/02/2016
1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13-2-2016 by which he has been sent to Field Hospital, Bheji for a period of three months as Medical Officer.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has performed his duty at Ambikapur and joined at Bilaspur on 8-22016, and now from 13-2-2016 he is being sent to Jagdalpur for a period of three months. He would further submit that Dr, Mahesh Chandra Pandey had to come from Bangalore to Field Hospital, Bheji and replacing him, the petitioner has been directed to joint at Bheji for three months.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India /
respondents would submit that it is a temporary attachment for a period of three months looking to the Field Hospital at Bheji. He would further submit that the period remained posted at Bilaspur since August, 2012 and only for twenty days he was sent to Ambikapur. Thus, on the ground of administrative exigency, the petitioner's services have been transferred and he has been posted for three months at Bheji.
4. Taking into the consideration the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the fact that posting of the petitioner at Bheji is only for three months; he was posted at Bilaspur since August, 2012; present order is only for limited period and transfer being incidence of service, I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, this dismissal will not bar the petitioner for making representation to the higher authorities for consideration. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma