Abhiram Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4; Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, representing respondent no.1; and Ms. R. Boro Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, representing respondent nos. 5 and 6.

¶27

This petition for review is directed against the order dated 18.11.2023, passed by this Court in W.A. No. 423/2023 and order dated 20.02.2024, passed in I.A.(C) No. 3/2024.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that in compliance of the order dated 18.11.2023, passed by this Court in W.A. No. 423/2023, the petitioner, had joined his transferred place of posting. However, when the matter was being heard, the petitioner could not bring on record the two Office Memorandums dated 06.06.2014 and 08.10.2018, issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, exempting care givers of aged parents from routine and/or

¶29

Page No.# 3/5

¶30

rotational transfers. It is projected that at the time of filing this review petition, the age of the father and mother of the petitioner was 92 and 80 respectively, and that they are immobile and in need of care and thus, they are suffering from specified disability as defined in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶31

The material available on record reveals that the petitioner is a Lot Mandal, who was appointed in the year 2006 in the district of Tinsukia. On his request, in the year 2007, he was transferred to his home district, i.e. Bongaingaon District. He has stayed in the particular place of posting continuously for 15 years. On his transfer vide order dated 26.09.2022 from Bijni Revenue Circle to Barama Revenue Circle which is at a distance of about 80 km., he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 6617/2022. The said writ petition was disposed of by allowing the petitioner time to submit representation. As the order passed on such representation was unfavourable to the petitioner, he then filed W.P.(C) 6708/2022. On dismissal of the said writ petition, W.A. No. 423/2023 was filed. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition, directed the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on 29.04.2024. The respondent authorities filed I.A.(C) 3/2024, for modification of the order and this Court, vide order dated 20.02.2024, corrected the date of release to 29.02.2024. The petitioner then challenged the transfer order dated 26.09.2022, by filing W.P.(C) 1218/2024, which was dismissed on withdrawal with leave to file review. Accordingly, the present review petition has been filed on 21.03.2024.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that as he was the only care giver to his aged parents, he must be posted near his place of residence so that the official work does not suffer and the petitioner can also

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

give care to his parents, who need constant medical attention. It has been submitted that though the petitioner had joined in his place of posting, this Court has inherent power to prevent injustice to the petitioner and to undo his transfer.

¶35

The senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the prayed made in this review petition.

¶36

Considered the materials available on record and also considered the submissions made at the Bar.

¶37

At the outset, it is noted that this is not a case where the impugned order dated 18.11.2023, passed by this Court in W.A. No. 423/2023 and order dated 20.02.2024, passed in I.A.(C) No. 3/2024 suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.

¶38

Moreover, the two OMs referred hereinbefore, are issued by the Government of India, but there is nothing on record to show that the said two OMs has been adopted by the State Government or by the Bodoland Territorial Council.

¶39

The petitioner has not produced any document to show the date when he had actually joined his transferred place of posting. Therefore, it is presumed that the petitioner has joined his place of posting in the year 2024, by that time, the petitioner has been at the same place of posting for about 16-17 years. Therefore, a transfer that is affected after 16-17 years of continuous posting at one place cannot be said to be a routine and/or rotational transfer.

¶40

Notwithstanding whether the two OMs, referred to by the petitioner is applicable to Govt. of Assam and/or to the BTC or not, the said two OMs cannot be read as if the same has created a total bar against transfer of a

¶41

Page No.# 5/5

¶42

Government servant, if they are care givers to persons with specified disabilities. 12) Therefore, this is not a case for the Court to substitute its wisdom over an order of transfer when the petitioner has stayed at one place of continuous posting for about 16-17 years at a stretch.

¶43

Therefore, this review petition is found to be devoid of any merit whatsoever and accordingly, this review petition is dismissed at a cost quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Chirang, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of this order.

¶44

In the event the said cost is not deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chirang within 31.12.2025, it would be permissible for the said authority to recover the amount of cost in accordance with law.

¶45

The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chirang for information.

¶46

JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Abhiram Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhiram Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mustt Amena Khatun Vs the Union of India

Md. Abu Bakkar @ Abu Bakkar Siddik Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Akbar Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Anjala Basumatary Vs State of Assam

Mohiran Nessa Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

MD Amar Ali Alias Aman Ali Vs the Union of India