Disposed

(Mrs) DabwunTunglim v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Jun 2022WP(C)/210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a government official's transfer from Papum Pare to Changlang District. The single-judge bench held that a transfer is not challengeable merely because it was served during leave or where spouses are not posted together, absent statutory violation or malafides.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Pending representation under date 19.05.2022 directed to be disposed within 15 days.

(Mrs) DabwunTunglim Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040007092022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 210/2022

¶5

1:(Mrs) DabwunTunglim SMO. (Allopathy). CHC. Kimin, W/o Dr. Nabam Arun, Village Lower Sher, PO and PS Kimin, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF AP and 3 Ors.

¶8

Represented by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶9

2:The Director of Health Service Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun

¶10

3:The District Medical Officer Yupia District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh.

¶11

4:The Medical Officer In Charge Kimin District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Domo Boje

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 16-06-2022

¶18

Heard Shri B. Tapa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department.

¶19

2. Considering the subject matter of dispute, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

¶20

3. The petitioner is a Senior Medical Officer serving in the Community Health Centre at Papum Pare District. She is aggrieved by an order of transfer dated 08.04.2022, by which she has been transfer from Papum Pare District to Changlang District.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following grounds in support of the challenge:

¶22

(i) The order of transfer has been issued while the petitioner was on earned leave.

¶23

(ii) The husband of the petitioner is also a government servant being a Senior Veterinary Officer at Kakoi, which is in the same District of

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Papum Pare and is in requirement of medical care and monitoring coupled with the fact that the petitioner has a minor child.

¶26

(iii) The order of transfer can be modified so that both the petitioner and her husband can be considered for transfer in a common place.

¶27

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that against the impugned order of transfer, a representation, dated 19.05.2022, has also been filed and is pending.

¶28

6. Shri T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order of transfer. He categorically asserts that there cannot be any bar in issuing an order of transfer of an incumbent while the incumbent is on leave and so far as posting of the spouses in one location is concerned, there is no such norm in the State Government. He, accordingly, submits that there is hardly any ground for interference. The learned Standing Counsel, however, has fairly submitted that the representation, dated 19.05.2022, may be ordered to be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶29

7. On a specific query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner, in the meantime, spent more than 4 (four) years in the present place of posting at Papum Pare District.

¶30

8. It is a settled law that transfer being an incidence of service, the same cannot be challenged in a routine manner and unless the incumbent can

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

demonstrate that the same has been passed in violation of the statutory norms or vitiated by mala fide, such orders of transfer are not liable to be interfered with. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the normal tenure of posting of a government servant in the State is 2 (two) years, the petitioner has long passed the said tenure and therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer order is in violation of any statutory norms. This Court is also unable to accede to the submission that an order of transfer cannot be passed when the incumbent is on leave.

¶33

9. So far as the ground of common posting with the husband is concerned, in absence of any such norms prevailing in the State, this Court would be reluctant to pass any direction in that regard.

¶34

10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no ground for interference with the order of transfer dated 08.04.2022. However, since it is submitted that representation, dated 19.05.2022, is pending, the same is directed to be considered and disposed of as early as possible and in any case, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which the petitioner is directed to place before the concerned authority within a week from today, i.e. on or before 24.06.2022. The petitioner may also pray for an interim direction from the respondent authority.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

(Mrs) DabwunTunglim v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(Mrs) DabwunTunglim v. the State of Ap and 3 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

The State of Ap Vs M/s T. K and Sons Enterprises

Kasumoty Tayeng Vs the State of Ap and 10 Ors.

Nabam Yadik and 28 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 16 Ors.

Indira Taloh Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Tapan Mondal Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Tater Tamut and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.