- (1.) The writ petitioner has challenged the office order at Annexure-18 dated 11.11.2013 whereby the temporary transfer of the petitioner from MECON, Ranchi to MECON, Mumbai has been extended up to 14.5.2014. The same has been challenged on the ground of being contrary of the "MECON Limited Employees Service Rules" i.e. Rule 14.2 under Chapter XIV of the said rule, which relates to transfer and benefits. Further the same has been, challenged on the ground that petitioner is not in a fit medical condition to undertake the responsibility of the job at Mumbai. Petitioner has also raised the question of malice of law during course of his submission but however not supported by any such grounds as contained in para 3 of the writ petition. The short background in the instant case is that the petitioner was serving as Senior, Design Engineer (Inspection) under the respondent-MECON when earlier he was transferred on 31.10.2012 to the same place for the period of 1 year. The said order was assailed by the petitioner in W.P.S. No. 7973 of 2012 primarily on the grounds that he had suffered a bypass surgery in 2010 and had not been keeping good health and still under treatment for various ailments under the supervision of Doctor of Apollo Hospital at Ranchi. He had also submitted that he was going to retire in October, 2015 but his representation had not been considered and rejected by a cryptic order without assigning any reason. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 12.2.2013 (Annexure-10) with an observation that the rejection of the petitioner's request was not supported by any reason and therefore, the C.M.D., MECON Ltd., Ranchi shall consider his request afresh in the light of medical advice and other documents and pass an appropriate reasoned order. It was also observed that the petitioner shall not be relieved, if not already relieved. The petitioner's request was, again refused by Annexure-13 dated 30.9.2013 issued by the General Manager (P&A) on the ground that after-considering the medical report and other related documents, the C.M.D. had considered that he would be able to discharge desk work duty in view of his physical condition. He was accordingly asked to report his duty at MECON, Mumbai. The petitioner, admittedly joined at Mumbai, thereafter on 6.11.2013 and reportedly again fell ill. He was again referred to Apollo Hospital by the doctors of Ispat Hospital, MECON, Ranchi for treatment. In the meantime, by the impugned office order dated 11.11.2013 the respondents have extended the period of temporary transfer of the petitioner to MECON, Mumbai till 14.5.2014. Therefore, the petitioner has once again challenged the order, of extension of temporary transfer in the present writ application.
(2.) On 25.2.2014 this Court after noticing the rival submissions of the parties considered it proper to direct the respondents to have a re-look into the matter of extension of petitioner's temporary transfer, if necessary by constituting another Medical Board to examine his present status of health. It was also indicated that, in the meantime the respondents would not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. On 22.3.2014, when the matter was taken up thereafter, it appeared that exercise for which the matter had been adjourned on the earlier occasion had remain unconcluded on account of the stand taken by the respondents as well as the petitioner. In such circumstance, this Court directed the Superintendent' of RIIMS to get the petitioner examined through' Senior Cardiologist of RIIMS for giving his opinion about the medical condition of the petitioner. It was also indicated that since the petitioner has complained of Orthopedic and Psychiatric problem, services of the specialists in the said branches be procured, as available in RUMS. This Court observed that after examination of the petitioner's case the Medical Team of RIIMS shall give their opinion as to whether the petitioner is in condition to undertake travel outside the city in relation to his job. The parties were directed to appear on 26.3.2014 before the Superintendent, RUMS at 10.30 a.m. along with all necessary documents relating to his treatment as may be relevant. The Superintendent of RIIMS was directed to submit the medical report in a sealed cover before the Registrar General of this Court before 31.3.2014. The report of the Medical Team kept in sealed cover submitted before the Registrar General was opened today when the matter has been taken up and counsel for the parties have also been allowed to peruse the same. The report which comprises the opinion of the specialist Doctors under Psychiatry, Orthopedic and also the department of Cardiology is being extracted herein under:-- Psychiatry:--Patient has been diagnosed as -a case of depression and is on tablet sertraline 50mg once daily from CIP, Kanke for the same. At present, patients sleeps, eats well, is euthymic, denies delusions, hallucinations memory Intact, social and test judgment is intact Orthopedic:--Mild cervical shoulder; static weak exposure; avoid high pillow; return to physiotherapy. Cardiology:--Mr. Peter Anand Kumar Ekka, 59 yr. Old gentleman, who is a known case of diabetes and hypertension since 2003, has undergone CABG in 2010 for severe triple vessel coronary Artery disease. He has also undergone pacemaker Implantation in same hospitalization due to intermittent complete Heart Block. Since then his cardiac condition is stable and he is on regular medical treatment. In current examination his ECG, ECHO and TMT has been done. His TMT is negative for exercise induced is chaemia and Ms ECHO Cardiography showed normal LV systolic function. His pacemaker is functioning optimally. Cardiac wise he is fit for his regular duty (including field work). But as he is also suffering from diabetes and hypertension, he requires close supervision of his medical treatment by a physician/cardiologist and diabetologist (at least once in a month). From perusal of the report of the specialist in Psychiatry, it is apparent that the petitioner at present has been found not to be suffering from any serious psychological disorder, though he has been diagnosed with depression for which he is taking prescribed tablets. The report of the specialist in Orthopedics also shows that petitioner is not suffering from any such serious orthopedic problem and he has been advised to avoid high pillow with physiotherapy due to mild cervical problem. A perusal of the report of Cardiologist, Dr. Ritesh Kumar also indicates that the petitioner had undergone, cardiac surgery to remove blockage in heart and also undergone pacemaker implantation. However, the said report states that his cardiac condition is stable as he is on a regular medical treatment. After considering the TMT, ECHO and ECG report the doctor has opined that cardiac wise he is fit to do duty including field work but since he is suffering from diabetes and hypertension, he requires close supervision of his medical treatment (at least once in a month). From perusal of the aforesaid report, it is therefore clear that the petitioner is fit for regular duty including field work, though he may require close supervision of his medical treatment by physician/cardiologist and diabetologist. It is not anywhere in question that the place where the petitioner has been transferred I.e. at Mumbai, there is no dearth of specialist physician/cardiologist and diabetologist for regular close supervision of his medical treatment at least once in a month. The main ground raised on behalf of the petitioner that his medical condition does not permit him to remain at Mumbai is therefore unsustainable on facts. The petitioner's other ground to challenge his temporary transfer is that in view of clause 14.2 "such transfer should not exceed more than 12 months. As it appears from the facts of the instant case, after the first order of transfer on 31.10.2012 the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 7973 of 2012 and after the judgment dated 12.2.2013 passed in the instant case, as also the rejection of his request, he only submitted his joining on 6.11.2013 at his transferred place of posting. Apparently, he never completed the 12 months period from the date of his original transfer. Therefore the said ground raised by the petitioner also stands negated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents have acted with malice in view of the judgment rendered by the State Consumer Forum, Ranchi in Consumer Complaint Case No. 13 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner against the respondents whereby they have been asked to pay compensation for negligence in treatment of the complaint-petitioner. It is also submitted that the appeal preferred by the respondent-MECON is pending before the State Consumer Forum and same is the basis for the transfer of the petitioner. Such ground, however is not made out in the grounds raised by the petitioner in para 3 of the writ petition in the first place. Secondly the respondents have taken a plea that the Organization required the services of an expert, i.e. Senior Design Engineer, (Inspection), which post the petitioner is holding at MECON, Ranchi, and is the reason for transfer of the petitioner to Mumbai. In a question relating to placement of services of an employee serving under any organization, this Court is loath to enter into the question as to whether the services of one or the other employee working under the Organization is required to be placed at one or the other place by the respondent-employer. The petitioner otherwise had resisted the said transfer primarily on the ground of his medical unfitness, which however has been answered in view of the categorical report of the Medical Team of RUMS as quoted herein above. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 extending his temporary transfer to MECON, Mumbai. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 25.2.2014 stands vacated. Let the report of the Medical Team of RUMS which has been placed before this Court through a forwarding letter of the Superintendent of RUMS dated 29.3.2014 be treated as part of the record.;