Point of Law: In matters of transfer, Courts have very limited jurisdiction. Petitioner is also not holding a lowly placed post in organization but is a senior management level officer. Issues of personal difficulties and approaching retirement are matters to be considered by administration and not by Court. Neither any breach of statutory rules nor any mala-fides are pleaded or established.

JUDGMENT :

S. TALAPATRA, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 653 of 2021. The learned single Judge in the said order dated 16.09.2021 has observed inter-alia:

“By the impugned order he is transferred from Agartala to Kumarghat. Undisputedly, the petitioner is holding a transferable post. In the matters of transfer, the Courts have very limited jurisdiction. The petitioner is also not holding a lowly placed post in the organization but is a senior management level officer. The issues of personal difficulties and approaching retirement are matters to be considered by the administration and not by the Court. Neither any breach of statutory rules nor any mala-fides are pleaded or established.”

On such observation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) has been dismissed.

3. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner is due to retire on 28.02.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years of age and this very fact is evident from the notice issued by the respondents on 04.08.2021 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Mr. Pal, learned counsel has put serious emphasis on the memorandum dated 24.08.1993 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) wherefrom a regulating policy evinces. Having considered the relevance of the said memorandum dated 24.08.1993 in the present context, the entire text of the said memorandum is reproduced hereunder:

“GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA

APPOINTMENT & SERVICES DEPARTMENT

No. F.2(20)-GA/93:

AGARTALA, AUGUST 24, 1993

MEMORANDUM

1. The undersigned is directed state that as a welfare measure, Government have decided that ordinarily in the last one year of service of a Government employee, the employee shall not be transferred except to a place of his choice.

2. All departments are requested to ensure that this decision is strictly complied with.

illegible

(R.K. Vaish)

Commissioner, Government of Tripura

Principal Secretary/

All Commissioners/Secretaries/

Heads of Departments.”

By that policy, it has been espoused that as a welfare measure, the government has decided that ordinarily in the last one year of service of the government employee, the employee shall not be transferred except to a place of his choice. The said policy is unequivocal and no authority has been created to make any exception to that policy.

4. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further submitted that the said policy equally applies to the persons who are deputed in the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) by virtue of the order dated 28.12.2004, where it has been provided that all employees of the Power department have deputed to the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) without any deputation allowances. Service conditions of these employees shall continue to be governed by rules and regulations by which they were governed as on December 31, 2004. The said policy came into effect before 31.12.2004. Therefore, the said policy is applicable on the services of the petitioner. The impugned transfer order (Annexure-2) was issued on 27.08.2021. The petitioner would retire even before one year from the date of the said order of transfer. As such, it is apparent that the petitioner, is eligible for the benefit of that policy as provided by the memorandum dated 24.08.1993. The transferring authority, therefore, ought not have transferred the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director, TSECL on 02.09.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) where he had categorically stated the fact of his retirement within seven months from the date of issuance