1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11994/2010 Gavendra Pal Singh Versus Raj. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and another DATE OF ORDER --- December 14,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Rajvir Sharma, for the petitioner Mr.Virendra Lodha, for the respondents BY THE COURT (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.7.2010 (Anx.9) whereby the petitioner has been placed on deputation for a period of two years as Operator-I from KTPS, Kota to GLPL, Barmer. (3) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that in the appointment letter dated 12.7.1985 (Anx.1) as also Annexure to the letter dated 29.10.1985 (Anx.2), it has been mentioned that `No request for their transfer to any other office of RSEB except within KTPS will be normally entertained. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case of deputation, the consent of the employee concerned is necessary, which has not been taken in this case. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment in support of which medical prescriptions have been placed on record out of which in document dated 2.8.2010 (Annexure-11), given by Dr.Rakesh Jindal, M.D. D.M.Cardiologist, Kota Heart Institute, Kota, there is clear mention that the petitioner needs regular treatment and should work at a place where emergency cardiac services are available. 2 (4) Counsel for the respondents has placed on record the fact by filing additional affidavit that the GLPL, Barmer is a subsidiary company of the respondent No.1 - Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and further orally submitted that the same came into existence on 23.11.2006. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the respondents have framed the transfer policy for deputation of the employees of the respondent Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. to the subsidiary company, for a fixed period and that the services of the Heart and General Physician namely Dr. S.R.Bhandari and Dr.R.N.Sharma are available at Barmer. He further submits that ICU facility is also available in the Government Hospital, Barmer. (5) Counsel for the petitioner has controverted the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the respondents by filing counter affidavit to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents. (6) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the parties as well as the documents available on record. (7) I am of the view that the GLPL is a subsidiary company, which came into existence after the appointment of the petitioner on 12.7.1985 and 29.10.1985 wherein word `normally' has been mentioned and further, in the matter of deputation in the subsidiary company, more so for a period of two years, keeping in view the exigency of service, no consent of the employee is required which is usually taken when deputation is made from one Department to another Department controlled by two different appointing authorities and the same may further result in change of conditions of service. There is no substance in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that no deputation can be made without the consent of the employee concerned, in view of the appointment letter whereunder no deputation can be made. (8) As regards availability of medical facility at Barmer, counsel for both 3 the parties have disputed the availability of cardiac medical facilities at Barmer. The relative hardship cannot be considered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly in the matter of transfer and it is for the employer to consider the same. (9) Therefore, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer is directed to get the petitioner medically examined for the cardiac ailment, as referred to in Annexure-11, in case cardiac medical facility is available at Barmer then give copy of the report to the respondents within three days and if not available, then issue a certificate to the aforesaid effect within the said period of three days. The petitioner is directed to make himself available before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer on 24.12.2010 for medical examination of cardiac ailment. (10) In case of non-availability of cardiac medical facility at Barmer, then the petitioner is at liberty to make representation for cancellation of the deputation and the respondents are directed to consider the recommendation of the CMHO, Barmer and pass appropriate order. (11) For a period of fifteen days, the interim order dated 01.11.2010 shall continue. (12) The writ petition is disposed of, with the above observations. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल