IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1379 of 2008 (S/S) Km. Seema ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondents. Dated: 05.06.2009 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.12.2008 by which her representation was rejected. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents for transferring the petitioner from Haldwani to the place nearby Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case, which emerges out of the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in Irrigation Department on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 25.08.1990 and worked up to 24.10.1992. Thereafter, she was removed from service w.e.f. 24.10.1992. Feeling aggrieved by that order the petitioner 2 raised Industrial Disputes under Section 4 K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and was registered as adjudication case no.151 of 1993. The Labour Court gave award on 31.05.1995 holding that termination of the petitioner was in violation of Section 6 N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents’ department challenged the award of the Labour Court before High Court of Allahabad in writ petition no.27798 of 1996. The High Court refused to grant interim order in favour of respondents’ department. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service as per award and started to discharge her duties as Junior Clerk at Dehradun office. After creation of State of Uttarakhand the writ petition was transferred to Uttarakhand High Court and was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.08.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the this Court, the respondents’ department preferred Special Leave Petition No.CC 6886 of 2006 before the Supreme Court but same was also dismissed on 05.09.2006. After the decision of the Supreme Court the respondents continuously harassed the petitioner in different way for which she also made complaint to the police but no action was taken. In such circumstances the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Engineer seeking her transfer from Dehradun to another place and ultimately the petitioner submitted an application on 25.10.2007 for her transfer from Dehradun to another place. Request of the petitioner was considered and petitioner was transferred from Dehradun to Haldwani 3 vide order dated 01.11.2007. She joined at Haldwani on 08.11.2007 and started performing her duties but after her joining at Haldwani, she suffered from various diseases. She made representation on 07.10.2008 annexing therein medical certificates and prayed for her transfer from Haldwani to nearby place Dehradun where her treatment is going on but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition no.1057 (S/S) of 2008 and this Court finally disposed of the writ petition on 24.10.2008 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order. On 05.12.2008 her representation was rejected. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 05.12.2008, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is suffering from several diseases and her treatment is going on at Dehradun and in case she is transferred to Dehradun or at nearby place it will be convenient for her to get treatment there. Petition has also been filed on the ground that mother of the petitioner is residing at Dehradun and there is no one in her family to look after her and the petitioner is only person who can take care of her old ailing mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the respondents wrongly rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that her case is not covered under the transfer policy as earlier the petitioner was transferred from Dehradun to 4 Haldwani by the order of respondents. He further argued that prayer of the petitioner for transfer from Haldwani to Dehradun or nearby place is genuine and should be considered by the respondents sympathetically. 4. Respondent nos.2 to 5 filed counter affidavits in which only stand is taken that the case of the petitioner for transfer can be considered only after obtaining advice of Medical Board in the Transfer Session of 2009. 5. Since the claim of the petitioner for transfer is not denied by the respondents, her claim can be considered in the Transfer Session of 2009. The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer to Dehradun or at nearby place in the Transfer Session of 2009. It will be open for the respondents to take advice of Medical Board in the matter. 6. No order as to costs. (V.K.Bist, J.) 05.06.2009 Arti