S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6210/2007 (Smt. Rajam C.N. Vs. State & ors.) Date of Order :: 3rd October 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Narpat Singh for the petitioner Mr.R.Dave, Dy.G.A. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 22.08.2007 (Annex.16) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur rejecting her appeal (No.74/2006) against the order dated 31.01.2006 made by the Principal Medical Officer, Bangar Hospital, Pali relieving her from the post of Lady Health Worker and directing her to report to the Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur. In her appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner raised questions on adjustment of the respondent No.5 Smt.Rekha Rani at City Dispensary, Pali though she was earlier posted at Block Bussi, District Pali; and contended that the respondent No.5 was not entitled to be so posted in Pali Hospital and yet the impugned orders were issued only for the purpose of accommodating her. It was also contended that the appellant- petitioner had made a representation stating her personal difficulties and family problems that had not been considered. The Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the appeal taking it to 1 be simply a case of questioning a transfer order; and has observed with reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for personal difficulties, the employee must make representation to the authorities concerned. The petitioner has submitted in this writ petition that earlier the Tribunal granted interim stay in her favour on 23.05.2006 (that has been clarified to be dated 24.05.2006 during the course of submissions), and consequently she was posted at City Dispensary, Pali; and simultaneously, on the vacant post of Nurse Grade-I, respondent No.5 was also allowed and posted in the Office of Principal Medical Officer, Bangar Hospital, Pali. The petitioner has pointed out that during pendency of the appeal, two more posts occupied by ANMs in the office of Principal Medical Officer, Bangar Hospital, Pali fell vacant on account of retirement of two incumbents respectively on 31.05.2006 and 31.12.2006 and has also pointed out that now the respondent No.5 has been adjusted and posted in place of one of the incumbents Smt.Anish T.P. who retired on 31.12.2006 and has produced the order dated 22.01.2007 (Annex.12) made in relation to the said respondent No.5. The petitioner, while challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2007, has taken several grounds in the writ petition but learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, 2 has confined his submissions to the extent that the petitioner is about 54 years in age and is suffering from acute rheumatic arthritis, diabetes, hyper thyroid and hypertension for a long time and has to look after her old and retired husband too. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had raised all her grievances by way of representation made to the authorities concerned and the learned Tribunal has been in error in making a cursory observation that the petitioner ought to have made a representation for personal difficulties. Learned counsel pressed the submissions of the petitioner that for personal difficulties, the petitioner would have adopted the proposition of seeking voluntary retirement but then, the State Government has put a ban on seeking retirement by the employees like the petitioner by its order dated 22.11.2006 (Annex.17); and submitted that her grievances deserve to be looked at by the authorities concerned. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, though the petitioner has raised the grounds in her appeal against the posting of respondent No.5 Smt.Rekha Rani also but in all fairness, has given up such submissions in her relation, particularly looking to the fact that she had been accommodated in place of other employee who had retired. So far the order passed by the Tribunal is concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal seems to have disposed of 3 the appeal in a wholly cursory manner. When it was the case of the petitioner that she did make a representation regarding her personal difficulties as averred in paragraph (8) and (9) of the writ petition and when petitioner had annexed a copy of such representation as Annexure.9 with the memo of appeal, the Tribunal ought to have examined the position obtainable from such representation and ought to have considered the effect of the fact, if such representation was not decided by the respondents. The petitioner has of course not filed copy of the said representation with this writ petition (that was filed as Annex.9 before the Tribunal) however, today, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy thereof on record. It appears from the averments taken by the respondents in their reply before the Tribunal (Annex.13) that they have not denied making of such representation by the petitioner but stated in their reply to paragraph 7 (ix) of the memo of appeal relating to such representation that the same was denied for want of knowledge. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, this Court is of opinion that the authorities concerned ought to have considered and decided the representation made by the petitioner. 4 Having regard to the circumstances of the case, this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be served if the respondents are directed to consider objectively and dispassionately the representation made by the petitioner and for that purpose, if necessary, the petitioner may make a representation afresh stating all her grievances within a week from today. It has been stated by the petitioner that for adverse circumstances, she would have preferred adopting the proposition of seeking voluntary retirement too but could not do so for the ban so operating. In relation to these submissions, learned Dy. Government Advocate in all fairness has submitted that if the petitioner would make any such prayer for seeking voluntary retirement, the department would consider the same also in accordance with law. The petitioner is free to make such proposition before the department and the department is trusted with its words to consider the same also objectively and dispassionately. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 22.08.2007 is modified in the manner that the concerned authorities shall take decision on the representation already made by the petitioner, or if made afresh by her within a week from today, objectively, dispassionately, and at the earliest. Until decision of such representation/s, no order 5 adverse to the interests of the petitioner in relation to her posting shall be passed and status quo as was obtainable during pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. 6