HC Vacates Stay On Transfers In ISM; Asks DG To Give It Immediate Effect

SHARE:

Putin Congratulated Sharif On Pakistan”s Accession To The SCO
Army Launches All-out Anti Militancy Operation, Claims 13 Killings in 96 Hours
Note Ban May Continue To Slow Down India’s Economy: SBI

“In the meantime subject to the objections and till the next date of hearing before the bench, the operation of the impugned order shall stay. Resultantly, the respondent-state shall give effect to the transfer order bearing number DISM/Est/2017/5063-82 dated 26 of September 2017,”


 The Legitimate Desk 

Jammu: The Division Bench of Jammu High court has offered an interim relief to the transfer order issued by the Director General ISM and has kept the next hearing in the case for December 16 2017.

The petition heard by the division bench comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magray and Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta stated that the Director General ISM shall  immediately give effect to the transfer order issued by the department on 26 September 2017.

“In the meantime subject to the objections and till the next date of hearing before the bench, the operation of the impugned order shall stay. Resultantly, the respondent-state shall give effect to the transfer order bearing number DISM/Est/2017/5063-82 dated 26 of September 2017,” the order reads, copy of which lies with The Legitimate.  

Initially the order was stayed by the single bench.

“Now we are following the directions of High Court as it has directed us to give the effect to the transfer order which was issued on merit basis,” said the senior official in ISM, wishing not to be named. He said that the transfers were made on merit basis and was vetted by the competent authorities before its approval.

Meanwhile, the officer rubbished the reports published in newspaper which accused department of making some transfers on vested interests.

“It smacks of a malicious campaign aimed at tarnishing the image of the department. Few transfers made in ISM Department with the prior approval of the Minister for Health & Medical Education and Principal Secretary to Government Health & Medical Education Department have been sensationalized by the newspaper in a scandalous manner,” Director ISM said in a statement issued here today.

He said the assertion made in the news report that 13 Assistant Directors and ADMOs have been transferred without competence is completely concocted and misconceived.

He said that the transfers of some officers were made after it was observed that they were overstaying their previous places of postings and the decision was taken in the interests of administration.

 “As a matter of fact only four I/c ADMOs and equivalent who are substantively holding the post of Medical Officers namely Dr SK Pandita had a stay of 4 years & 6 months, Dr Rakesh Kumar Raina had a stay of 8 years & 4 months, Dr Syed Hyder Shah had a stay of 5 years & 10 months and Dr Sujad Hussain Shuja had a stay of 5 years & 10 months and were transferred in the interest of administration and with the prior approval of Minister for Health & Medical Education and Principal Secretary to Government Health & Medical Education Department,” the statement said adding that these material facts have been suppressed which speaks volumes about the motive behind the news item.

He said as per Schedule 1-C of Civil Services Regulation Vol 11 1956 with reference to Article 339 (Item 98), a Major HoD is competent to transfer an officer whose scale of pay does not exceed Rs 1000(Pre-revised). The pay scale of post of Assistant District Medical officer (ISM) as per Civil service (pre-revised pay) Rules 1973 is 250-550 revised to 475-850 (Pre-revised).

According to the statement the transfer order was duly served upon the transferees who all joined at their new places of posting. “It is not correct that these transfers have been made without competence,” it said adding that transfer is always as an incident of service and not punishment. “A Government servant holding a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one place to another which is an incidence of service and does not affect or alter his terms and conditions of service,” it said adding it is a prerogative of an employer to judge where the services of an employee are required in the best interest of the administration.

 

COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 0
DISQUS: 0
Close
Please support the site
By clicking any of these buttons you help our site to get better