Allowed

Genya Sora v. The State of Ap and 3 Others

Gauhati HC10 Mar 2021Review Pet./5/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the Gauhati High Court recalled a judgment that dismissed a writ petition concerning an alleged frequent transfer. The court found that new evidence indicated the petitioner never served under the relevant division, warranting fresh consideration. The writ petition was restored to file.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was recalled and restored to file for fresh consideration.

Genya Sora Vs The State of Ap and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040002332021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Review Pet. 5/2021

¶5

1:Genya Sora

¶6

S/O LT. KARGE SORA, PRESENTLY SERVING AS ASSISTANT SURVEYOR OF WORKS (C), MECHUKA HYDRO POWER DIVISION, SHIYOMI DIST. AP.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:The State of AP and 3 Others

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (HPD), GOVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR.

¶10

2:THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EZ) DEPARTMENT OF HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.

¶12

4:JUMKEN BAGRA

¶13

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) PRESENTLY POSTED AS AE (C) AT AALO HYDRO POWER DIVISION WEST SIANG DIST. AP

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 10-03-2021

¶20

Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. S. Soki, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

¶21

2 . By filing this review petition, the review petitioner who was also the writ petitioner seeks review of the Judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 249/2020.

¶22

3 . Brief facts essential for disposal of review petition is that the petitioner, who is an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Hydro Power Development, is aggrieved with the Order dated 10.09.2020 by which, he has been transferred from Mechuka Hydro Power Division to Geku Hydro Power Division. It is the case of the petitioner that with the renaming of Aalo Hydro Power Division-I as Mechuka Hydro Power Division vide Order dated 04.08.2020, he was asked to take over charge of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Mechuka Hydro Power Division vide Office Order dated 07.08.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner assumed the charge of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Mechuka Hydro Power Division on 07.08.2020. However, before he hardly completed one month in his new place of posting, he was transferred from Mechuka Hydro Power Division to Geku Hydro Power Division by the impugned Order dated 10.09.2020. Being aggrieved, he filed WP(C) No. 249/2020.

¶23

4 . The writ petition was disposed of vide the Judgment dated 23.02.2021 by this Court after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had joined the Hydro Power Division at Mechuka on 09.11.2015, as can be seen from the deployment list/station seniority of Assistant Engineer under the Department. Besides this, this Court had also noticed that the impugned transfer order was not a transfer order for the petitioner and the private respondent alone but involved other Engineers of the Department. In other words, it was a chain transfer for the Engineers mentioned in the impugned transfer order. This Court

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

had also observed that transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in terms of the appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary in the law governing or conditions of service. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the instant Review Petition.

¶26

5 . The grounds taken in the review petition by the petitioner is that in terms of the Order dated 18.10.2016, Mechuka Sub-division was located to Aalo Hydro Power Division-II where the private respondent was posted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) and not the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner joined Aalo Civil Division on 10.02.2015 and not on 09.11.2015. Thirdly, the petitioner initially was serving as Assistant Surveyor of Works (ASW) in Aalo Civil Division but after the Order dated 12.06.2017, he served as ASW in Aalo Civil Division-I. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he never served under Mechuka Hydro Power Division prior to his transfer to the said Division in terms of the Order dated 04.08.2020.

¶27

6 . This Court in the writ petition had proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the premise that the petitioner had joined the Mechuka Hydro Power Division on 09.11.2015 and therefore, it was not a case of frequent transfer as sought to be projected by the writ petitioner. Such was the contention of the respondent No. 4 in the counter affidavit filed against the writ petition.

¶28

7 . However, from the projection made by the review petitioner with supporting documents in the review petition, it is seen that the petitioner was serving under Aalo Hydro Power Division-I as the ASW and that Mechuka Subdivision fell under Aalo Hydro Power Division-II. The petitioner, therefore, prior to the Order dated 04.08.2020 did not serve under Mechuka Hydro Power Division. Thus, upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the factual aspect of the matter was not correctly projected before this Court and for this reason, this Court is inclined to recall the Judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 249/2020. The writ petition shall now be restored to file and be listed for fresh consideration at an early date in view of the urgent nature of the case.

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

8 . The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Genya Sora v. The State of Ap and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Genya Sora v. The State of Ap and 3 Others

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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rokima

Ms United India Insurance Vs H Lianzeli

Nuney Tayeng Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Aldrin Malsawmtlunga Vs State of Mizoram, r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram And 7 Ors.

Mohesh Deka Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Saleha Begum Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.