Disposed

Somcha Lowang v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2022WP(C)/196/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge examined a transfer petition where a Deputy Commissioner nearing retirement was reassigned. While holding transfer guidelines do not confer absolute rights, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order within 15 days, maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chief Secretary to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2022 and pass a speaking order within 15 days. Status quo maintained.

Somcha Lowang Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040006312022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 196/2022

¶5

1:Somcha Lowang W/o Lt. Taro Chatung,

¶6

Permanent Resident of Village Hija, PO/PS Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

Contact No. 9436638859

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors.

¶10

Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶11

2:The Commissioner District Administration Govt. of Arunchal Pradesh Itanagar

¶12

3:Bamin Nime

¶13

Jt. Secretary (Protocol/CA) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar Permanent Resident of Village Bamin Michi PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Ziro Arunachal Pradesh

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tari

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 01-06-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶21

2. This writ petition was filed assailing the order of transfer and posting dated 27.05.2022, issued by the respondent No. 1, by which the writ petitioner who was holding the post of Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District was transferred and posted as Director (Art & Culture) at Naharlagun and the respondent No. 3, who was the Joint Secretary (Protocol/CA) at Itanagar was posted as Deputy Commissioner Lower Subansiri District.

¶22

3. The petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the said order is violative of the circular dated 02.06.1998 (amended in 19.12.2008). As per the said office circular, the posting of all Government servant is for 2 (two) years and it recommends that officer are not to be transferred one year before their retirement, as it may affect preparation of their pension paper etc.

¶23

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.05.2023, and she is having less than one year of service. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District on 11.02.2021, and she has just completed one year of her tenure. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s matrimonial home is also in the Lower Subansiri District and as such

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

she is planning to settle there and therefore, transferring her at the fag end of her carrier, is violative of the circular/guidelines issued by the State authorities.

¶26

5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The honourable Division Bench of this Court in Kalyan Kumar Sarkar Vs. Alok Gandhi Pal Choudhary reported in 2006 3 GLT 624, held that a writ Court can exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when a person seeking such writ establishes that his fundamental or other legal right has been violated. In the said case the honourable Division Bench further held that the guideline of transfer does not confer any right upon an employee.

¶27

6. The law is well settled that the transfer order can be interfere by the Court under its power of judicial review, only when a same is issued in mala-fide exercise of power and in violation of statutory provisions or the same changes the status of the employee. It is also well settled that the transfer is an incidence of service and the decision to transfer one person from one place to another in exigencies of service shall be laid to the discretion of the employee.

¶28

7. However, as the petitioner has submitted a representation raising her grievances by her representation dated 30.05.2022, and requesting to stay the transfer order. The State as model employer is required to take note of such difficulties and grievances of the petitioner and should take a call on such representation.

¶29

8. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2022, and pass a reason order within outer limit of 15 (fifteen) days from today.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

9. The learned Standing Counsel has clearly submitted that he will have no objection, if representation is directed to be considered by the Chief Secretary.

¶32

10. In view of the consensus and considering the difficulties expressed by the petitioner through her representation before the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, this Court directs the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to take note of the representation dated 30.05.2022, and pass a speaking order in this regard within outer limit of 15 (fifteen) days from today. Till such decision is taken, the status quo as on date regarding the transfer and posting of the petitioner as well as of the respondent No. 3 shall be maintained.

¶33

11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of claim of the petitioner as detailed in her representation dated 30.05.2022. The Chief Secretary shall apply his own mind and as per law without being persuaded by any observation made in this order.

¶34

12. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Somcha Lowang v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somcha Lowang v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tate Taki and Anr. Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Dalin Tana Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Biki Talum Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Ariya Meto and 30 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Projjwal Dev and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 10 Ors.

Nom Tamut Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.