An intervention application has been filed on Wednesday in the Allahabad High Court in the PIL matter in-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The application has been filed by advocates Kartikey Yadav and Naman Issrani for petitioner Rahul Gangele, who has been working as a teacher in a private university, Indore for the last 3 years. 

The Intervenor sought the indulgence of the High Court with the sole purpose of safeguarding of interest and protecting the fundamental rights of the government teachers and employees and their family members and dependents, who contracted Covid-19 while discharging election duty during the UP panchayat elections and lost their lives due to Covid. (The PIL matter has been listed for May 22(Saturday) by an order of the bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Siddharth Verma on May 17 which directed the government to come up with a report as to how the upgradation of Medical Colleges shall be done in 4 months time. The Principal of SRN Hospital has also been ordered to apprise the HC about the working of Centralized Monitoring System of both Covid and Post-Covid wards including ICUs by the next date fixed by filing an appropriate affidavit in this regard.)

The intervenor stated that panchayat elections were held between April 15 and 29, when the surge in Covid-19 cases were happening, and its results were declared on May 2. Thousands of UP government employees and teachers were assigned election duty.  

The intervenor raised the grievance that regardless of the threat to their life and well-being, the government teachers and employees of the state of Uttar Pradesh were compelled to discharge election duties at the sole discretion of the Government, regardless of the danger it posed to not only their lives but also to the lives of their family members to whom they were to eventually return after elections.

The derelict act of state of Uttar Pradesh can be viewed by its decision to grant compensation of Rs 30 lakh only to family members and dependants of government employees who had lost their lives while discharging election duty. By another order dated May 8, the state of Uttar Pradesh issued a direction vide dated May 5 which provides for monetary compensation of Rs 50 lakh to the families and dependents of those personnel who have lost their lives in prevention and treatment of Covid-19 pandemic.

It was the obligation of the state to take appropriate measures for ensuring safety of its employees from infection, but on account of failure of State Government to adhere with the Covid-19 protocol , large numbers of government employees and teachers contracted Covid-19 while discharging election duty.

The High Court of Allahabad vide order 06.04.2021 issued directions to District Administration including Police Authorities to see that no crowding takes place in any place all over UP and if it finds that any particular place which is likely to get crowded, then it should cordon off that area and see that people do not huddle.

This Hon’ble Court specifically directed that the Panchayat Elections should also be conducted in such a manner that no congregation of people takes place. Be it nomination, be it canvassing or be it the actual voting, it should be seen that all Covid-19 protocols are observed. Even after the directions of this Hon’ble Court there is failure on the part of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to adhere to the Covid-19 protocol that such a large number of government employees and teachers suffered from Covid-19 infection while discharging election duty.

That vide order dated 7.4.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.- 10698 of 2021 recorded an undertaking by the State Election Commission that counting will be supervised through CCTV cameras to be installed at the designated counting centers and those who were in charge of the counting centers would be held responsible for any lapse regarding compliance of Covid-19 guidelines. It is thus clear that even after the statement given by the State Election Commission before the Apex Court the state election commission in connivance with the State Government did not adhere to the Covid-19 safety rules and regulations for conducting the elections, thereby avoided to stand by their statement given by them before the Supreme Court of India which is clearly a contempt of court.

The intervenor, Rahul Gangele, sought the following prayers in his intervention application:

1. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing the respondents to provide equal treatment to the Government teachers / staff and their dependants / family members as has been done by the State Government in relation to other Government officers / personnel performing Covid-19 duties at the directions of the State Government while deciding ex-gratia compensation and other benefits; and

2. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing the respondents for awarding additional monetary compensation of Rs 50 lakh to the family members/dependents in respect of default in providing medical facilities to the government teachers who lost their life while discharging their election duty due to Covid-19.

Read Also: Oxygen concentrators for personal use: Delhi HC’s ‘George Floyd moment’ comment is a telling commentary of the times

3. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing to the respondents to consider and provide compassionate appointment to the eligible family members of government employees, who sacrificed their lives due to Covid-19 while discharging election duty.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition of a government employee who had challenged his transfer. The Court said, “Transfer is an incidence of service and government employees are supposed to be transferred and posted anywhere in the state.”

The petitioner, Praveen Kumar, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Arts), has been transferred through transfer/office order, dated February 18, 2021, from GSSS Nabahi, Mandi to GSSS Barang, Mandi. The private respondent No.4 who is also a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Arts) replaced the petitioner. The Petitioner has approached the High Court, alleging that respondent No. 4 managed a Demi Official (DO) note in his favour, whereupon he was transferred and as sequel the petitioner was disturbed.

Manik Sethi, counsel for the petitioner, argued that transfer of respondent No. 4, in place of the petitioner, was effected only at the instance of local MLA, that too after condoning his short stay at his last station of posting, so the transfer is neither in public interest nor in the exigency of service. He has further argued that amidst academic session the petitioner has been transferred, so there is a clear violation of Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 of Transfer Policy. Lastly, the counsel argued that the mother of the petitioner is a cardiac patient and the petitioner is the only one who looks after her.

Ashok Sharma, Additional Advocate General, contended that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at GSSS, Nabahi, Mandi, as, since, October 4, 2017, he was posted there and impugned transfer order was only made on February 18, 2021, with prior approval of the competent authority. He has further argued that all the government employees are liable to be posted anywhere in the State considering the service exigency and necessity.

Vishwa Bhushan, counsel for respondent No.4, stated that since the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting, thus the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any illegality and is well within the mandate of transfer policy.

A division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia while considering the records held that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 have political patronage.

“The unmindful practice of effecting transfers based on D.O. notes, in legal paradigm, is just administrative doldrums, due to political interference, but political interference, made by a public representative, is a mere recommendation. The recommendation made by a public representative needs to pass the stage of application of mind by the transferring authority and in this stage of application of mind by the transferring authority, it has to be seen whether the transfer is being effected on administrative exigency and public interest, if any,” the court observed.

The bench noted that the petitioner cannot challenge the legality of D.O. Note, whereupon transfer of respondent No. 4 has been effected, as the petitioner himself was transferred to GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, on the basis of D.O. Note. Now, when petitioner has been replaced by respondent No. 4, on the basis of D.O. Note, the petitioner has taken a slew and laid challenge to such transfer mainly on the ground that transfer on D.O. Note is illegal. Thus, the petitioner is both beneficiary and victim of what he has pleaded in the instant petition.

Read Also: Plea in Supreme Court seeks direction to Centre, states to control black magic, superstition and conversion

“The petitioner has completed his normal tenure at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, earlier he managed his transfer to Nabahi, through a D.O. note and now he has laid challenge to the transfer of respondent No. 4, on the ground that transfer cannot be effected on the basis of D.O. Note, especially when he is beneficiary of D.O. Note, we feel that the petitioner is standing on a slippery pedestal with crutches of D.O. note and chopping his own crutches,” the court said.

The court remarked that the petitioner, who himself is a beneficiary of D.O. note, now cannot portray himself to be victim of the D.O. note. In fact, the petitioner has no right to challenge his transfer.