Dismissed

Mustaque Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2024WP(C)/4632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking interference against an order withdrawing the petitioner's temporary attachment and requiring him to report to his original posting. The Court directed the authority to consider a pending representation by the petitioner citing family difficulties.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to consider the petitioner's representation submitted on 05-09-2024 regarding personal difficulties in reporting to Jaleswar.

Mustaque Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010185822024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4632/2024

¶5

MUSTAQUE ALI

¶6

S/O- LATE CHANDMAMUD ALI, , VILL- BALADMARI, NABIN NAGAR, P.O.BALADMARI CHAR, P.S. GOALPARA, DIST.- GOALPARA (ASSAM), PIN783121

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 36

¶10

3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES GOALPARA DIST.- GOALPARA PIN- 783121

¶11

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA PIN- 783121

¶12

5:THE S.D.M AND H.O. MORNOI B.P.H.C. P.O. MORNOI DIST.- GOALPARA PIN- 78312

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MS. T BEGUM,MR. A ROSHID

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, GA, ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 10-09-2024

¶20

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. T. Begum, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Sarma, learned standing counsel, H&FW Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam is present on behalf of respondent No. 4.

¶21

The writ petitioner herein, who is holding the substantive post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Jaleswar Model Hospital, Jaleswar under Goalpara district, was attached to the Mornoi BPHC, Mornoi, Goalpara, in which post he has been discharging his duties. However, by the order dated 02-09-2024, the attachment of the writ petitioner was modified and he was asked to report for duties in his original place of posting, i.e. Jaleswar Model Hospital, Jaleswar, Goalpara. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶22

By referring to the materials available on record, Mr. Mahanta has submitted in his usual fairness that although by the impugned order, the writ petitioner has been posted within the same district, yet, since the petitioner has a minor daughter, who is suffering from mental retardation, he is required to look-after his daughter personally, on day to

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

day basis. His minor daughter is studying in a school at Mornoi. Therefore, if the petitioner is now asked to report for duty at Jaleswar, which is about 70 k.m. away from Mornoi, this would cause serious disruption in the family life of the petitioner. Mr. Mahanta has further submitted that on 05-09-2024, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the respondent No. 2 ventilating his grievance in the matter. However, no action has been taken on the said representation till date, as a result of which, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court.

¶25

It is trite that the scope of interfering with an order of transfer by the Court is very limited, more so, when the transfer is effected within the same district. Moreover, by the impugned order, the petitioner is being brought to his original place of posting by withdrawing the attachment.

¶26

It is settled law that interference with a transfer order would be permissible only if it is established to be a case of arbitrariness, violation of statutory rules or malafide action. The petitioner’s case evidently, does not come within any of the aforesaid parameters. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has expressed personal difficulty in reporting at Jaleswar on the grounds mentioned in the representation and he has already submitted a representation before the concerned authority on 05-09-2024, this Court is of the opinion that such representation submitted by the petitioner deserved due consideration by the concerned authorities.

¶27

As such, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. Whatever be the outcome of the process, the petitioner be intimated

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

about the same in writing.

¶30

Until such time, an order is passed on the representation of the petitioner, status

¶31

quo, as regards the place of posting of the petitioner, as on date, be maintained.

¶32

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Mustaque Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustaque Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Prasanta Kr. Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rijul Ali Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sabita Nunisa and Anr. Vs North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council and 2 Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

The Union of India and 5 Ors. Vs Gs 192257X MD Hashim Ansari

Gs 192257X MD Hashim Ansari Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.