Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Nov 16: Observing that justice is above law and is done to save the individual from whatever he or she seeks protection, the state high court on Friday said that action of the state functionaries has to be transparent.
"The State cannot discriminate between similarly circumstanced persons. Ours is a welfare country which aims at the goal where everyone is/has to be, as far as possible, looked after," said a bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey while disposing of a petition filed an employee appointed by Staff Service Selection Board almost eight years back in Directorate of Census Operations, J&K, Srinagar
In 2012, the petitioner- Yogesh Chandra Pathak, on developing certain health problems, coupled with the factum of his parents being old-aged, approached the authorities with a representation, through proper channel, seeking his transfer from the State of Jammu and Kashmir either to his home state (Jharkhand) or to some other State nearer to his home State. While his repeated respresentations were not considered, during the interregnum, two Lower Division Clerks, namely, Pulkit Nawal Gupta and Vishal Tiwari, being similarly situated with Pathak, were transferred from DCO, Jammu & Kashmir to DCO, UP and DCO, Delhi, respectively.
"The case of the petitioner had to be considered on the same parameters and analogy as was evolved in the cases of the similarly situated persons, namely, Pulkit Nawal Gupta and Vishal Tiwari," the court said.
"Justice is not only law and its administration, but is, in most cases, above law and is done to save the individual from whatever he/ she seeks protection," the court said, adding, "Our country, in particular, aims at the goal of achieving the welfare State where everyone is/ has to be, as far as possible, looked after. There can be no discrimination between two individuals who are equally placed."
The court directed the respondents to transfer Pathak, on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of two similarly situated persons. "The respondents are expected to pass orders in the case of the petitioner, as above, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months' time from today," the court added. |
