AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari to other appropriate writ or direction, quashing Ext.P5 transfer order issued by the 1st respondent, being arbitrary,
malafide, unjust and illegal.
ii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be retained in ECDC, Ernakulam till her infertility treatment mentioned in Ext.P6 is successfully completed
and till she completes the normal tenure of 3 yrs and as her predecessors were allowed to continue here for 15, 15 and 5 yrs respectively.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, commanding the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from ECDC, Ernakulam,
till the completion of her tenure and successful completion of her treatment. “
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Centre.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a staff nurse, who has been in service in the respondent Centre from
2015. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing infertility treatment at the CIMAR, Ernakulam and that the petitioner had sought a transfer and
accommodation at the ECDC, Ernakulam on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that considering the request made by the petitioner, the petitioner
had been granted a transfer to the ECDC, Ernakulam on compassionate grounds for a period of one year. She was, thereafter, permitted to continue.
Thereafter, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been sought to be re-transferred to Thiruvananthapuram.
It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the petitioner had been granted a compassionate posting to the
Centre at Ernakulam only for a period of one year, but the petitioner had continued for another year because of the pandemic situation. It is submitted
that the petitioner has now been re-transferred to Thiruvananthapuram on administrative exigencies and that there is no ground for interference with
the order of re-transfer of the petitioner in view of the specific fact that the petitioner had been posted only for a year at Ernakulam.
A statement has also been placed on record on behalf of the 1st respondent.
The petitioner has placed a detailed reply affidavit on record highlighting the stage of the IVF treatment undergone by the petitioner as also pointing
out that there are several staff nurses, who have been posted elsewhere from Trivandrum, who are ready and willing to be transferred to Trivandrum
before the petitioner's transfer is effected.
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that if the petitioner has any grievance as against Ext.P5 order of transfer, it is
for the petitioner to raise the same before the appropriate authority in the respondent Centre, which is the Grievances Redressal Centre. It is stated
that if such a request is made before the respondents, the same will be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the humanitarian aspects of
the matter as well.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the request made by the petitioner for retention at Ernakulam for the time being
is liable to be considered by the Grievances Redressal Cell. In case the petitioner makes a detailed representation, within ten days from today, pointing
out the factual aspects of the matter before the respondents, the same shall be placed before the Grievances Redressal Cell, who shall consider the
grievances of the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents and after hearing them through any appropriate means including
video conferencing and pass orders thereon within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation as directed above.
Till orders are passed as directed above, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue at her present station.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.