Dismissed

Mizanur Rahman v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Sept 2019WA/308/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-Court appeal challenged a Single Judge order dismissing a writ petition against an CRPF transfer and a rejected representation for extension. The Court noted the appellant switched from opposing the transfer to applying for voluntary retirement, then revoked that application. Finding no good ground to interfere, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mizanur Rahman Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010236042018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WA 308/2018

¶5

1:MIZANUR RAHMAN

¶6

FORCE NO. 980250014, S/O LATE EUNUS ALI AHMED, PRESENTLY POSTED AT 10 BATTALION CENTAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, HOWLY, BARPETA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110003

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI 110001

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR (MEDICAL) CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI 110017

¶12

4:THE COMMANDANT 10 BATTALION CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE LOCATED AT HOWLY BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781301

¶13

5:THE COMMANDANT 74 BATTALION CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE LOCATED AT DANTEWADA CHATTISGARH

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

PIN 49444

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D DAS

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

12.09.2019

¶22

[ A.K. Goswami, CJ(Acting) ]

¶23

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents and Mr. Suresh Chandra, Assistant Commandant (Law).

¶24

Challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to an order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4110/2017 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant wherein a challenge was made to his order of transfer dated 27.04.2017. Prior to that, challenging the very same transfer order, the appellant had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2888/2017, which was disposed of by an order dated 17.05.2017 providing that the representation to be submitted by the appellant should be considered and disposed of by a speaking order and further providing that till such disposal, the order dated 27.04.2017 shall not be given effect to.

¶25

By an order dated 22.06.2017, the representation was rejected by a speaking order and accordingly, the instant writ petition out of which the present appeal arises, was filed.

¶26

Noting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not been relieved from his present place of posting, by an order dated 12.10.2018, status quo was directed to be maintained until further orders.

¶27

On 30.05.2019, a submission was advanced on behalf of the appellant that on 02.05.2019 the appellant had submitted an application for voluntary retirement, which had since been forwarded by

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

the Commandant, 10^th Bn, CRPF, BTC, Howly, under whom the appellant was posted, vide his letter dated 09.05.2019 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that if the voluntary retirement is accepted, there was no occasion for him to argue the case.

¶30

In the background of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Keyal had prayed for some time.

¶31

A perusal of the said letter dated 09.05.2019, available in the affidavit filed by the appellant to the interlocutory application filed by the respondents for cancellation/modification/alteration of the interim order dated 12.10.2018, goes to show that the appellant had prayed for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2019 and he had completed more than 20 years of service.

¶32

Today Mr. Keyal has submitted that by a letter dated 04.09.2019, the appellant had informed

¶33

the Commandant of 10^th Bn CRPF, Howly that he does not want to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2019. A copy of the Signal given by the Commandant to that effect to the Assistant Commandant (Law) as well as the copy of the said letter given by the appellant has been placed before the Court.

¶34

Mr. Ahmed submits that he was not apprised of the aforesaid developments by the appellant.

¶35

A perusal of the letter dated 04.09.2019 goes to show that it was informed to the authorities that he had expressed willingness to proceed to go on voluntary retirement because of some domestic problems, but as he had managed to sort out the problems and due to his present economic condition, he had decided to continue in service for some years.

¶36

It is to be noted that in the representation that was submitted by the appellant on 25.05.2017 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.05.2017 in WP(C) No.2888/2017, he had prayed for retaining him in 10^th Bn Howly for another one year. More than 2 years have elapsed since then. On his own showing, as reflected in the letter dated 04.09.2019, the petitioner had overcome whatever difficulties he had, for which he wants to continue in service.

¶37

Perusal of the materials on record indicates that the appellant had been serving in the North East since 10.09.2005 and in Assam from 03.08.2009. He is in the present place of posting from 04.11.2013. Tenure of posting in a battalion is generally for 3 years.

¶38

Page No.# 4/4

¶39

In view of the above discussions, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Copy of sheets of paper produced by Mr. Keyal is placed on record.

¶41

Sd/Sd/- JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Mizanur Rahman v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mizanur Rahman v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mihir Chakroborty and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti. Rupa Bora Vs Sri Simanta Nath

Lal Chan Miah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Mizanur Rahman

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Ajoy Kumar Bhattacharyya

Self Made Welfare Association Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.