Sadhani Terangpi Vs State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 4 as well as Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent no.3 and Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.5.

¶26

2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner assailing an order dated 30.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, towards transferring and posting her from the post of Accountant, Diphu Treasury, to the post of Accountant at Bokajan SubTreasury vice the respondent no.5, purportedly in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 in WP(C).No.4251/2020.

¶27

3. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.5, at the outset has submitted that the respondent no.5 had retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation and accordingly, he would not be interested to further pursue the present writ petition.

¶28

4. Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing his attention to the order dated 30.10.2020, submits that the same has been

¶29

Page No.# 3/5

¶30

projected to be so issued in pursuance to the directions passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 in WP(C).No. 4251/2020. He further submits that a perusal of the order dated 13.10.2020, would reveal that no such directions were passed by this Court requiring the transfer and posting of the petitioner, herein.

¶31

5. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 4, submits that the order dated 30.10.2020 was not implemented in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2020 and accordingly he submits that considering the lapse of time occasioning in the matter, this Court would be pleased to interfere with the order dated 30.10.2020, granting liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders, in the event, administrative exigencies so demand.

¶32

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶33

7. The petitioner on her promotion as Accountant came to be posted to Diphu Treasury. The respondent no.5 is also promoted vide the same order for the post of Accountant and was posted at Bokajan Sub-Treasury. The respondent no.5 had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.4251/2020, praying for his posting against the post of Accountant at Diphu Treasury, considering the fact that he was to retire from his services on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f.,28.02.2021.

¶34

8. This Court noticing the said grievance vide order dated 13.10.2020, disposed of the said writ petition granting liberty to the respondent no.5, herein, to prefer a representation before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to pass a reasoned order on the same as may be permissible under law.

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

9. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court had further held that the direction for passing of a reasoned order by the Deputy Commissioner would also require him to take into consideration that the petitioner in the present proceeding is already posted and working as a Accountant in the Diphu Treasury.

¶37

10. It is seen that after passing of the said direction by this Court vide the order dated 13.10.2020, no speaking order is found to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, rather the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to issue the order dated 30.10.2020 transferring the petitioner, herein, to Bokajan Sub-Treasury and posting the respondent no.5 against the post earlier held by the petitioner as Accountant at Diphu Treasury.

¶38

11. This Court while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 17.11.2020 had directed for maintenance of status quo with regard to the holding of the charge of the post by the petitioner and the respondent no.5, herein.

¶39

12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that in terms of the said order, the petitioner continued to discharge her duties at Diphu Treasury while the respondent no.5 till the time of his superannuation continued at Bokajan Sub-Division.

¶40

13. In view of the said position and considering that a period of 5(five) years have lapsed from the date of issuance of the order dated 30.10.2020, this Court proceeds to set aside the same and thereby permitting the continuance of the petitioner, herein, against the post of Accountant at Diphu.

¶41

14. The setting aside of the order dated 30.10.2020, would not restrain the respondent authorities from passing a fresh order of transfer in respect of the petitioner, herein, in the event, on assessment it is found to be

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

necessitated on administrative exigency. Further, such order would also be permissible to be issued considering the length of service rendered by the petitioner as Accountant in Diphu Treasury.

¶44

15. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Sadhani Terangpi v. State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhani Terangpi v. State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mantu Sarma Vs MD Jahirul Islam

Sri Mantu Sarma Vs MD Jahirul Islam

Prasad Kumar Roy and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

V. Krishnendu Sinha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rajkumar Prithviraj Narayan Dev Mech @ Prithviraj Narayan Dev Mech Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Plabon Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.