High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 09 J&K CK 0016

Tabasum Rani vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 25 September 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tashi Rabstan, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 3491 Of 2019, CM No. 7273 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 445 words

Tashi Rabstan, J

1.

Notice.

2.

Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, learned Sr. AAG waives notice on behalf of respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in the writ petition that the petitioner, who is working as FMPHW, vide Order No. 85-HME of 2014 dated 06.02.2014 was accorded to the inter-cadre deputation for a period of two years from PHC Pouni, Reasi to Sub-Center Billa Block Mandi, Poonch, whose name has been figured at serial No. 53 in the aforesaid order and thereafter vide order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Poonch she was adjusted at PHC Bruti Block Mendhar against the clear vacancy and since then the petitioner has been performing her duties.

4.

It is further stated that the Block Medical Officer, Poonch issued a certificate dated 11.09.2019 stating therein that the petitioner is urgently needed in far flung areas especially in border belt areas. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Director Health Services, Jammu the petitioner amongst others was detached and was directed to report to her parent District/cadre. Therefore, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 19.09.2019.

5.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner who is a patient of Dilated Cardiomyopathy with LVEF of 20%, to this extent the Principal & Dean, Government Medical College, Jammu issued a certificate dated 03.07.2019 in her favour, has to take a regular medication with regular follow up in Cardiology OPD as the nature of the disease is lifelong.

6.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

7.

The respondents are competent to either extend the deputation the officials or recall them and the respondents have rightly issued the order dated 19.09.2019, detaching all the officials who have been accorded inter-cadre deputation including the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no right to question the repatriation and to detain on a deputation on a place where she has been deputed. Further, the particulars of the writ petitioner, given in the writ petition, reveal that she is actually the resident of District Poonch, where she has been working from year 2014 on deputation basis. Now, vide order impugned she has been repatriated to her parent district/cadre and that is the reason she has questioned the impugned order. However, in view of her health conditions as projected in the writ petition, the respondents/competent authority is directed to ensure that the petitioner is posted in her parent District/cadre at a place where the medical facilities are available so as to enable her to avail the same, if any required. Let the respondents pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks from today.

8.

Disposed of as above along with connected CM.