By this common judgment, Civil Rule No.257 of 1998 and Civil Rule No. 258 of 1998 are proposed to be disposed of at the stage of Motion.

2. Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the respondents in both the cases. Mr. DB Sengupta and Mr. CS Sinha, learned Advocates appeared for the petitioners. I have heard the argument advanced by all of them.

3. The Govt. of Tripura formulated guidelines in respect of special privilege in the matter of transfer of office bearers of recognised Associations vide memorandum No.23(24)GA/93 dated 28.2.1994. The petitioner in Civil Rule No.257 of 1998 is the Treasurer of State Committee of the Tripura Employees' Action Committee, a constituent body of all Tripura Employees' Federation and the petitioner Shri Sanjib Kar of Civil Rule No.258 of 1998 is the General Secretary of All Tripura Employees' Federation, Khowai Sub Division. It is alleged that they have been transferred in violation of the provisions of the said guidelines. In both these writ petitions, the validity of the transfer orders of the writ petitioners have been challenged on the ground that the transfer orders were issued without obtaining prior approval of the concerned departmental Ministers.

4. Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt Advocate referring to the Memo dated 28th February, 1994 (Annexure 5), submitted that the relevant provisions in this regard does only provide for transfer of the office bearers holding the rank of President or Chairman, Secretary General or General Secretary, Treasurer or Cashier with the approval of the departmental Minister. Mr. Saha, further argued that this provisions available only to the State level and Sub ivisional level office bearers of any recognised Association or its constituent unit. Referring to Explanation 1 and 2, he further elaborated that a State level Association or its constituent based at Agartala shall be entitled to this benefit only in respect of three office bearers while its Sub Divisional unit (including constituent units) may claim this special privilege only in respect of two. According to him, Tripura Employees' Action Committee is a constituent body of All Tripura Employees' Federation and, as such, this special privilege having been granted to the parent body, the office bearers of a constituent unit such as All Tripura Employees Action Committee cannot claim this benefit in addition to what has been extended to the apex body. Although this argument has not been advanced in respect of Tripura Employees Federation, it has, however, pointed out that the transfer orders of the petitioners have been approved by the concerned Ministers. Mr. Saha has also produced the original file which shows that the concerned Ministers accorded ex post facto approval to the transfer of the petitioners.

5. The common question, therefore, arises whether the transfer orders of both the petitioners have been issued flouting the provisions of para 1 of the guidelines of the Government policy. Para 1 of the guidelines reads as follows :

. "1. The undersigned is directed to state that henceforth, 3 (three) State level office bearers, by designation and 2 (two) Sub Division level office bearers, by designation of any recognised employees association or its constituent unit shall be given special privilege in the matter of transfers to the extent that the transfer, when warranted by administrative requirements, shall be issued only with the approval of the departmental Minister concerned."

6. After going through the writ petitions and the documents placed, I find that the transfer orders of both the petitioners have been initially issued without approval of the Ministers concerned. However, ex post facto approval of the Ministers was taken later on. The omission, in my opinion, to issue the transfer orders with prior approval of the Ministers concerned is a mere irregularity and it is not incurable. This irregualrity in the administrative action crept in and continued till the approval of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document