Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-respondents and Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3.
With the consent of learned counsel for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally decided.
The petitioner, a contractual employee, is before this Court challenging the transfer order dated 17.06.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, by which he has been transferred from Unnao to Siddharth Nagar on the basis of some complaints.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the guidelines dated 11.12.2014 issued for the National Health Mission in pursuance to which contractual employees like the petitioner are appointed, there is a specific bar in terms of Clause 9 that a contractual employee cannot be transferred for any reason whatsoever. It is contended that once the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the said guidelines consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to transfer the petitioner from the place where he is working i.e. at Unnao.
This Court vide order dated 04.07.2019 had required Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, to seek specific instructions as to when the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment do not provide for any such transfer as to how the petitioner has been transferred.
Today, Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel, contends that there was an incident of fight between two doctors and complaints had been received in this regard on the basis of which the petitioner has been transferred through impugned order. However, upon a specific query being put to Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari that when Clause 9 of the guidelines dated 11.12.2014 specifically prohibits any such transfer then as to how the petitioner could be transferred, Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari contends that in terms of the subsequent guidelines dated 24.09.2018 Clause 9 provides that a contractual employee can be transferred on the basis of orders issued from the Government level. Upon being asked as to whether any order has been issued from the Government level in this regard, Sri Tewari contends that no such order has been issued.
Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records. From perusal of records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner, a contractual employee, has been transferred by means of order dated 17.06.2019 from Unnao to Siddharth Nagar. In terms of guidelines governing such contractual employees which are contained in guidelines dated 11.12.2014 Clause 9 of the said guidelines specifically prohibits for such transfer. Even if the subsequent guidelines dated 24.09.2018 over which Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari places reliance are taken into consideration even then the said guidelines provide that a contractual employee can be transferred on the basis of orders issued from the Government level from time to time. It is admitted that no such orders have been issued from the Government level and consequently it is Clause 9 of the guidelines dated 11.12.2014 which would continue to hold field and, as already indicated above, they specifically prohibit transfer of a contractual employee. This being the position and there being a specific bar on the transfer of the contractual employees, the transfer of the petitioner, a contractual employee, is thus legally unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 17.06.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed.
Consequences to follow.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 A. Katiyar