Dismissed

Shri Chello Take v. Shri Kipa Taro

Gauhati HC3 Jan 2020Cont.Cas(C)/42/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed three connected petitions challenging transfer orders. The Court held that since the petitioner's appointment under the RGPSA scheme was wound up and he absorbed as a State employee, the transfer was legal in accordance with State guidelines, resulting in dismissal and closing of the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed. The contempt petition is closed. The interim order is vacated.

Shri Chello Take Vs Shri Kipa Taro — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040008072019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C) 42/2019

¶5

1:SHRI CHELLO TAKE

¶6

S/O CHELLO KAFFA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT UPPER KOLORIANG, PO/PS KOLORIANG, KURUNG KUMEY DIST., AP.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SHRI KIPA TARO

¶9

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY, UPPER AND LOWER KOLORIANG, KURUNG KUMEY DIST. AP.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : M Noshi

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶12

Linked Case : WP(C) 283/2019

¶13

1:SHRI CHELLO TAKE S/O CHELLO KEFFA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT UPPER KOLORIANG PO/PS KOLORIANG KURUNG KUMEY DIST. AP. PHONE NO. 9402985971

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

1:THE STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

2:THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPTT. OF PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.

¶18

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN DPDO KOLORIANG KURUNG KUMEY DIST. KOLORIANG AP. 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY UPPER AND LOWER KOLORIANG KURUNG KUMEY DIST. KOLORIANG AP. 5:SHRI BENGIA KAIK PTA JE PRESENTLY UNDER POSTING TO UPPER KOLORIANG ASSEMBLY SEGMENT KURUNG KUMEY DIST. AP.

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.D Tamuk Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶20

Linked Case : WP(C) 175/2019 1:SHRI CHELLO TAKE S/O CHELLO KAFFA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT UPPER KOLORIANG PO/PS KOLORIANG KURUNG KUMEY DIST. AP. PHONE NO. 9402985971

¶21

VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR. 2:THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT. OF PANCHAYATI RAJ

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.

¶24

3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR RE PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT. OF PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.

¶25

4:SHRI BENGIA KAIK PTAJE PRESENTLY UNDER POSTING TO UPPER KOLORIANG ASSEMBLY SEGMENT KURUNG KUMEY DIST. AP.

¶26

Advocate for the Petitioner : B Padung Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶27

BEFORE

¶28

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶29

Date of Judgment and Order (Oral):03.01.2020 Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. M. Gibi

¶30

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S. Tapin, Govt. Advocate

¶31

Mr. T. Garam,

¶32

Heard Ms. M. Gibi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. Also heard Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the private respondent No.4 in WP(C)175(AP)/2019 and respondent No.5 in WP(C)283(AP)/2019.

¶33

2. As the writ petition being WP(C)175(AP)/2019 and WP(C)283(AP)/2019 as well as Contempt Petition No.42(AP)/2019 are inter connected, the same are taken up for disposal by this common order.

¶34

3. This writ petition being WP(C)175(AP)/2019 was filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 10.06.2019, issued by the Director (PR), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, vide No.PR-EW/49/2017/2323, by

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

which order the writ petitioner, who was working as Panchayat Technical Assistant (‘PTA’ for short) in the 4^th Upper Koloriang Anchal Samiti was transferred and attached to DPDO Office, Kurung Kumey District.

¶37

4. The writ petitioner contended that the appointment of the petitioner as PTA was made by an order dated 03.03.2014 under Rajiv Gandhi Panchayat Shashaktikaran Abhiyan(RGPSA) scheme on contractual basis for a period of one year w.e.f. March’ 2014 specifically for 4^th Upper Koloriang Anchal Samiti. The services of the writ petitioner came to be extended from time to time. As the writ petitioner was appointed as PTA specifically for 4^th Upper Koloriang Anchal Samiti, the writ petitioner contended that transfer order dated 10.06.2014 attaching the petitioner to DPDO Office, Kurung Kumey District was illegal.

¶38

5. This Court vide an order dated 19.06.2019 passed in WP(C)175(AP)2019 had directed the parties to maintain status quo as prevailing on that day. Despite the status quo order passed by this Court in WP(C)175(AP)2019 on 19.06.2019, the respondent authorities had issued an ex-parte order of the PTA, 4^th Upper Koloriang Anchal Samiti, as a result of which, the writ petitioner had to institute a Contempt petition being Cont. Case No.42(AP)2019 for violation of the status quo order passed by this Court as well as another writ petition being WP(C)283(AP)2019, challenging the impugned ex-parte order dated 19.02.2019. This Court vide an order dated 23.08.2019, had issued notice to the respondents in the Contempt petition as well as in the WP(C)283(AP) 2019 and also stayed the impugned ex-parte order dated 19.07.2019.

¶39

6. The State respondents have filed a counter affidavit in WP(C)283(AP) 2019, wherein, in paragraph-4, it has been stated that the centrally sponsored scheme where the writ petitioner was appointed as PTA, namely, Rajiv Gandhi Panchayat Shashaktikaran Abhiyan is no longer in

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

existence and on discontinuation of the aforesaid scheme, the writ petitioner’s services along with other similarly situated persons have been taken over by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and have appointed the petitioner along with others as PTA in the Department of Panchayati Raj. The writ petitioner, now being a State government employee would liable to be transferred in accordance with the transfer and policy guidelines prevailing in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶42

7. In view of the statements made by the State respondents in the counter affidavit filed that centrally sponsored scheme under Rajiv Gandhi Panchayat Shashaktikaran Abhiyan have been wound up and after the winding up of the aforesaid scheme, the writ petitioner has been given employment in the department of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, the contention of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was appointed under the centrally sponsored scheme of RGPSA specifically for 4^th Upper Koloriang Anchal Samiti can no longer be a legally sustainable ground.

¶43

8. The entire case of the writ petitioner being based on the appointment order of the writ petitioner under Rajiv Gandhi Panchayat Shashaktikaran Abhiyan (RGPSA) scheme having appointed the petitioner specifically for 4^th Upper Koloriang Anchal Samiti is liable to fall through in view of the RGPSA being wound up; and, the petitioner being now an employee of the State Govt. would liable to be transferred in accordance with transfer and policy guidelines of the State Govt.

¶44

7. In view of the above, the writ petitions fails and the same are dismissed. The Contempt petition No.42(AP) of 2019 is also closed.

¶45

8. Interim order passed earlier in the writ petitions stands vacated.

¶46

9 . The writ petitions and the Contempt petition are disposed of, in terms above.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Comparing Assistant

Shri Chello Take v. Shri Kipa Taro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Chello Take v. Shri Kipa Taro

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

Mokshed Ali and 2 Ors. Vs Sarfraz Haque, Acs

Er. Yumlam Take Vs Shri S.K Jain

Syed Nazrul Islam Vs Dhiraj Jyoti Kalita

Munni Bhakat Vs Alok Kumar and 3 Ors.

Sahad Ali Ahmed and Anr. Vs Sri Sanjib Kumar Bhuyan and Ors.

Saila Borthakur Vs Mukti Gogoi and 2 Ors.

Kuladhar Talukdar and 11 Ors. Vs Rajendra Prasad Das and 5 Ors.

Budhar Chandra Adhikary Vs Shyam Jagannathan and 2 Ors.

Shri Kule Dada Vs the State of A.P.

Domin Lomi Vs Yommar Ango

The Executive Engineer Vs M/S D.Tadu Enterprises

Thuing Singpho Vs the State of Ap

Geken Loyi Vs Nyamo Kamduk

Tapung Bagang Vs the State of Ap