Dismissed

Michi Chatung Tanyang v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC26 Apr 2022WP(C)/158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his transfer within the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat, alleging violation of a two-year tenure rule. The Court held that internal shifts are not illegal transfers and the shortfall in tenure does not warrant interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Michi Chatung Tanyang Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040004642022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 158/2022

¶5

1:Michi Chatung Tanyang S/o Late Michi Nama Tanyang, Section Officer (SO), RWD Branch, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, Phn No. 8787556781

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors.

¶8

Represented by Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, Pin 791111

¶9

2:The Secretary (GA) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Pin 791111

¶10

3:Khijum Manyu

¶11

Section Officer (SO) under transfer and posting to RWD Branch Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Pin 79111

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Oyina Perme

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 26.04.2022

¶18

Heard Ms. O. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that by an order dated 05.05.2020, he was transferred and posted as Section Officer of RWD Branch. The petitioner is an employee of the Secretariat Administration Department. By an order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the by the Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Secretariat Administration Department, the petitioner was transferred to the post of Section Officer, Agriculture & Horticulture Branch. Thereafter, by another order dated 18.04.2022, passed by the Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department, in partial modification of the previous order dated 05.04.2022, the petitioner was transferred as Section Officer, Finance Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a circular dated 18.08.2021 to project that the guidelines for transfer and posting envisages that no transfer shall be made before 2 (two) years of a particular place of posting. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted representations dated 07.04.2022 and 13.04.2022, objecting to the transfer on the ground that normal tenure of 2 (two) years was not completed. Thereafter, by partial modification of the transfer order dated 05.04.2022, by order dated 18.04.2022, the petitioner was transferred as Section Officer, Finance Department.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Aggrieved by the said transfer order dated 05.04.2022, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside and quashing of the transfer order dated 05.04.2022 and for issuance of a direction against the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioner to retain him in the RWD Branch.

¶22

Although the petitioner is purportedly transferred by order dated 05.04.2022 and then by order dated 18.04.2022, but it appears that the petitioner is merely shifted from one section to another in the State Secretariat at Itanagar. In strict sense, this is not a transfer outside his place of present posting. Therefore, a transfer from one Department to another in the Secretariat cannot be held to be illegal.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that normal tenure of 2 (two) years is not over. However, it is seen that the previous order of posting was passed/issued on 05.05.2020 and therefore, only about 9 (nine) limited days remain for completion of the tenure of 2 (two) years. The shortfall of 9 (nine) days is not something which shocks the conscience of the Court. Moreover, the petitioner has only challenged the order dated 05.04.2022, but there is no prayer in the writ petition to assail the subsequent order dated 18.04.2022.

¶24

It is too well settled that the mere pendency of a representation would not be a ground to stay the transfer of the petitioner as the petitioner can always join in the place of posting and still maintain a representation against the order of transfer.

¶25

Therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

transfer. For a Govt. servant, transfer is an incidence of service and therefore, the Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

Nonetheless, it would be open to the petitioner to join his place of posting and thereafter, submit a representation to the competent authority for the re-consideration of the order of transfer.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Michi Chatung Tanyang v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Michi Chatung Tanyang v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rubu Opo Vs Millo Pugang and 2 Ors.

Geeta Mihu Vs Pankaj Kumar Jha (Ias) and 6 Ors.

Khach Bagang Vs The State of Ap and 3 Others

National Hydro Power Corporation Limited (Nhpc Ltd.) Vs Mizu Umpey and Anr.

Okom Siram Vs Allen Yirang and 2 Ors.

Phukan Deori Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.