SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Sikk) 22

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
PIUS C KURIAKOSE, S.P. WANGDI, JJ.
Shri H.B. Rai – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Sikkim &Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 03 of 2012
Decided on: 29.07.2013

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate with K.D. Bhutia, B. K. Gupta and Ranjit Prasad, Advocates.
For the State-Respondents:M/s J.B. Pradhan, Addl. Advocate General, Karma Thinlay Namgyal, Sr. Government Advocate and S.K. Chettri, Asstt. Government Advocate.

The Court emphasized the necessity of obtaining the consent of the employee when being sent on deputation to an outside agency or an autonomous body within the State.

Headnote:

Transfer - Deputation - Sikkim Revenue Service Rules, 2007 - Rule 24A, Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Technological Sciences Act, 1995 - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the Sikkim Revenue Service, challenged his transfer on deputation as Registrar, Sikkim Manipal University, without his consent. The petitioner argued that the post of Registrar was subordinate to his existing post of Special Commissioner and amounted to a demotion. The respondents contended that the transfer was made in public interest and that the petitioner's pay scale was protected.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the transfer-cum-deputation order was passed without the consent of the petitioner and was tainted with malafides. The Court also noted that the subsequent introduction of Rule 24A during the pendency of the writ petition, with retrospective effect, was intended to bypass the petitioner's challenge.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of the petitioner on deputation to a lower post without his consent was valid. The Court also considered the retrospective operation of Rule 24A introduced during the pendency of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the transfer-cum-deputation order was tainted with malafides and quashed the order. The Court also declared that the retrospective operation of Rule 24A would not apply to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, Annexure-P1 was quashed, and it was declared that Annexure-R6 notification would not operate retrospectively with effect from 02.07.2007 and would operate only prospectively with effect from the date of the notification.

Judgment

Pius, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner Mr. H.B. Rai on 16.01.2012 arraying the State of Sikkim and the Secretary, Finance, Revenue and Expenditure Department, Government of Sikkim as respondents No. 1 and 2. The reliefs claimed in this writ petition as instituted originally are, inter alia, quashment of Annexure P-1 Order dated 28.11.2011 served on the petitioner and an order of stay/injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect to Annexure P-1, Transfer Order. According to the petitioner, he was inducted into the State Revenue Service while serving in the Civil Service of the respondent-State as an Additional Commissioner in the year 2007 and subsequently, he was promoted in the year 2009 to the rank of Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Division, Finance, Revenue and Expenditure Department, Government of Sikkim and has been holding the said post till he was served with Annexure P-1 Order. According to him, the post of Special Commissioner held by him is equivalent to the post of Special Secretary in State Civil Service and the post of Commissioner is the highest post in the Revenue Service of the State and the post held by him, i.e. the Special Commissioner is the next grade below the Commissioner, in Revenue Service. Petitioner claims that since his induction into State Revenue Service due to his hard work, dedication and performance the collection of revenue in the Commercial Tax Division, Finance, Revenue and Expenditure Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘FRED’) all along crossed the target for collection of revenue. In this context he has given the statistics relating to the four Financial Years he served in the Revenue Service. According to the petitioner, this regular increase in the matter of revenue collection during the past four years has been due to his efficiency in the matter of discharging his duties. He also claimed that his official career in Revenue Service has been unblemished and he goes to the extent of claiming himself an efficient officer in the department of FRED in Commercial Tax Division. He points out that presently there is acute shortage of officers in Commercial Tax Division (FRED) due to transfer and retirement of five officers in the rank of Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner during past few years. According to him the increase in the revenue collection notwithstanding the dearth of officers in the Department has been the result of excessive burden he has taken upon his shoulders. His complaint is that notwithstanding that, Annexure P-1 Order was slapped on him by the first respondent on 28.11.2011. He points out that under Annexure P-1 Order, his name is mentioned at Sl. No. 4 amongst the 15 officers mentioned therein and he is transferred and posted as Registrar, Sikkim Manipal University on deputation. The petitioner aggrieved by Annexure P-1 order, challenges Annexure P-1 on various reasons such as:-

(i) The petitioner’s employment is governed by Sikkim Revenue Service Rules which does not contain any provision for transfer on deputation. According to the petitioner, in the absence of any rule in the Revenue Service for transfer of a cadre member, Rule 25 provides that rules applicable for transfer of officers of equivalent status prevalent in other departments shall have to be followed.

(ii) Therefore, Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974 or the Central Government Service Rules are applicable in such cases. Rule 9, Chapter-III of Sikkim Government Service Rules provides that unless disciplinary action is taken, no officers shall be transferred to a post carrying less pay-scale. Central Government Service Rules, on the other hand provides that if an officer is transferred to a non-cadre post, the State or Central Government shall first declare the said post as equivalent in status and responsibility to the post the incumbent was holding prior to his transfer.

(iii) The post of Registrar, Sikki














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top