Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.
Oli Koyu – Appellant
Vs.
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 211 (AP) of 2014
Decided On: 02.09.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:R. Saikia, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:R.H. Nabam, Sr. G.A., Tony Pertin and G. Jarak, Advocates
Headnote:
Employment and Service matter - Seeking quashment of transfer order - Petitioner has been working as Superintendent (Tax & Excise) and was initially posted as above at Koloriang - On completion of his tenure period at Koloriang, which is said to be a hard place of posting in terms of Govt. Policy on transfer, he was transferred out from place aforesaid and was posted at Likabali - Accordingly, he joined at his new place of posting at Likabali on 04.04.2011 - While he remained posted at Likabali, petitioner was suddenly transferred out from Likabali and was posted to Hawai in Anjaw district vide transfer order - However, he was so transferred before he could complete his tenure posting at such place - Being aggrieved, petitioner had filed a representation contending, inter alia that he had been suffering from several diseases including displacement of P-Palates of backbone - Held, Court found that despite his ill health and other domestic problems, petitioner had rendered invaluable service to department for which department could collect all time high revenue during tenure of petitioner in the pace aforementioned. Such conduct on part of petitioner was to have awarded - Instead he was transferred out of place aforesaid requiring him to run from pillar to post seeking cancellation of transfer order - In view of what I have discussed herein before and what have emerged there from, I am constrained to hold that order under challenge is unsustainable on all grounds agitated before this court - It clear that respondent authorities would always be at liberty to transfer petitioner from his present place of posting but strictly in accordance with, established requirement of law –Order accordingly.
Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.
1. This proceeding has been initiated seeking quashment of transfer order dated 24.06.2014 (Annexure VIII to the petition) issued by the respondent No. 1, Secretary/Commissioner (Tax & Exercise) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, under which the petitioner stood transferred from Namsai Sub-Division to Tezu in Lohit District under the administrative control of D.C. Lohit. Under the same transfer order, the respondent No. 3 too was transferred from Seppa, East Kameng District to Namsai, Sub Division under the administrative control of ADC, Namsai with some additional duties, mentioned in the transfer order.
2. Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate and Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.
3. The facts, necessary for disposal of the present proceeding, in brief, are that since 2011, the petitioner has been working as Superintendent (Tax & Excise) and was initially posted as above at Koloriang. On completion of his tenure period at Koloriang, which is said to be a hard place of posting in terms of Govt. Policy on transfer, he was transferred out from the place aforesaid and was posted at Likabali. Accordingly, he joined at his new place of posting at Likabali on 04.04.2011.
4. While he remained posted at Likabali, the petitioner was suddenly transferred out from Likabali and was posted to Hawai in Anjaw district vide transfer order dated 30.06.2013. However, he was so transferred before he could complete his tenure posting at such place. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 17.04.2013 contending, inter alia that he had been suffering from several diseases including displacement of P-Palates of backbone.
5. In his representation, he had further submitted that the transfer order aforesaid needs to be cancelled since his father who is a widower and who lost his wife very recently had undergone heart by-pass surgery. That apart, he is also suffering from renal failure which necessitated him to be on dialysis from time to time. On the aforesaid grounds, he desired that his transfer from Likabali to Anjaw was to be cancelled.
6. Since his representation was not considered, he had approached this court by way of filing a writ petition which was numbered as WP(C) No. 248/2013 challenging the said transfer order on grounds more than one. This Court issued notice upon the respondents and on hearing both the parties; the court was pleased to quash the transfer order dated. 30.06.2013 and directed the respondent No. 1, i.e. Commissioner (Tax & Excise) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar to assess the difficulties of the petitioner independently without being influenced by any other extraneous consideration vide order dated 24.09.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 248 (AP)2013.
7. For ready reference the order dated 24.09.13 of this court is reproduced below:
"The petitioner is aggrieved by annexure-VII order dated 30.06.2013 by which he has been transferred from BFC, Likabali to Hawai under Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw. By the same very order, the respondent No. 3 has been transferred from Hawai to Likabali to the replacement of the petitioner. Admittedly, the transfer of the respondent No. 3 is at his own request as it is evident from the impugned order itself in which there is a remark that "No TA/DA- the transfer is on own request". The remark is against the name of the respondent No. 3. Before the said order, there was same repetition by annexure-1 order dated 12.04.2013 making to accommodate the respondent No. 3. The petitioner submitted annexure-II representation dated 17.04.2013. Thereafter invoking the provisions of RTI Act, the petitioner could obtain the record relating to his transfer which revealed that the transfer was affected on the basis of the direction made by the Parliamentary Secretary (Home, Geology and Mining) by his endorsement dated 11.03.2013.
The petitioner filed WP(C)
