Quashed

Ravi Ranjan Verma v. Food Supply

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2015WPC/6068/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court quashed an administrative order rejecting a petition employee's representation against frequent transfers. The Court held that the order failed to consider specific Election Commission guidelines regarding tenure calculation in the home district and remanded the matter for a reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16.10.2014 is quashed and the matter remanded to the Secretary of the Food Department to pass a reasoned order within two weeks.

Ravi Ranjan Verma Vs Food Supply — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6068 of 2014

¶2

Ravi Ranjan Verma ........................ Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........................ Respondents

¶3

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate

¶4

4/05.02.2015 The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order as contained in memo no.3184 dated 16.10.2014 which has been passed by the authorities in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4921 of 2014 by which the request of the petitioner for recall of the order of transfer dated 8.9.2014 has been rejected with a direction to give his joining at the transferred place of posting.

¶5

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was working as Block Supply Inspector (Rationing). He was posted at Gomia Block in the district of Bokaro and was transferred to the district of Dhanbad vide order dated 3.12.2013. The petitioner, in terms of the notification dated 3.12.2013, resumed his duty in the district of Dhanbad and started discharging his duty. The Government issued fresh notification on 13.6.2014 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Dhanbad to Bokaro at Nawadih. The petitioner accordingly gave his joining at Nawadih in the district of Bokaro and started discharging his duty. The petitioner has again been transferred vide notification dated 8.9.2014 from Nawadih, Bokaro to Majhiaon in the district of Garhwa. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the notification of transfer dated 8.9.2014, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4921/2014 assailing the order of transfer on the ground of frequent transfers. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.9.2014 with the

¶6

-2-

¶7

liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities by making a representation and, accordingly, the competent authority i.e. the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand has been directed to consider the same in accordance with law within a reasonable period.

¶8

The petitioner in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.4921 of 2014 has submitted his representation before the respondent no.1 who has passed an order on 16.10.2014 by which the grievance of the petitioner has been considered and rejected with direction upon the petitioner to give his joining on the transferred place of posting in terms of notification dated 8.9.2014. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 8.9.2014 has preferred this writ petition.

¶9

The petitioner while assailing the order dated 16.10.2014 has taken two fold grounds :-

¶10

i) The petitioner cannot be transferred within short span of time i.e. 3.12.2013, 13.6.2014 and 8.9.2014 which is contrary to the resolution of the Government issued on 2.6.2005,

¶11

ii) The petitioner has been transferred on the ground of the direction issued by the Election Commissioner of India containing certain directions therein that if the employee who has completed three years of service in that district during last four years or would be completing three years on 31.1.2015, they shall be transferred.

¶12

From these grounds, the respondent-State was directed to

¶13

file affidavit vide order dated 22.1.2015 and accordingly respondent has filed an affidavit wherein the stand has been taken that the

¶14

-3-

¶15

petitioner since been posted in the district of Bokaro for more than three years out of last four years, hence in view of the guidelines of the Election Commission of India the claim of the petitioner after having been considered by the authorities, has been rejected.

¶16

The statement has been made by the respondent authorities in the counter affidavit that the period of three years will be counted because the petitioner was posted in the district of Bokaro for more than three years out of last four years and, as such, considering the guidelines of the Election Commission of India the authorities have passed the order of transfer.

¶17

Heard the parties at length and perused the documents on

¶18

record.

¶19

To adjudicate the issue it is important to note the guidelines of the Election Commission of India dated 14^th July, 2014 wherein the following provision has been made :-

¶20

“No officer connected directly with elections should be allowed to continue in the present district of posting :-

¶21

(a) If she/he is posted in her/his home district.

¶22

(b) If she/he has completed three years in that district during last four years or would be completing 3 years on or before 31.1.2015.”

¶23

The further relevant part of the said guidelines is at

¶24

Clause-(iii) which is quoted herein below :-

¶25

“(iii) The Commission further desires that a detailed review may, therefore, be undertaken in all districts,

¶26

and all such officers be posted out of their home districts or out of the district where they have completed or will complete, on the aforesaid date, tenure of three years out of the last four years, immediately. While moving such officers, care should be taken that they are not posted to their home districts. While calculating the period of three years,

¶27

-4-

¶28

promotion to a post within the district is to be counted. While carrying out this review it must be borne in mind that these instructions do not apply to officers posted in the State headquarters of the department concerned.”

¶29

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the guidelines of the Election Commission of India dated 14.7.2014 has been implemented by the respondent authorities. In the said guidelines there was no reference of the officers of the Supply Department to be dealt with.

¶30

In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Government dated 20.10.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Chief Election Commissioner-cum-Joint Secretary, Cabinet (Election) Department, Government of Jharkhand addressed to the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand wherein it was informed to the said Secretary that the Marketing Officer/Block Supply Officers who are being used in election process indirectly in the election process, they may also be dealt with in terms of Condition in Clause-(iii) of the Guidelines dated 14.7.2014 issued by the Election Commission of India.

¶31

Thus, the submission has been made that since the petitioner was transferred on 8.9.2014 on the basis of the Guidelines dated 14.7.2014, admittedly on 8.9.2014 the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India was not applicable with respect to the employees of the Supply Department, who are not directly involved in the election process come within the purview of the guidelines of Election Commission of India dated 14.7.2014, only on 20.10.2014.

¶32

-5-

¶33

Hence, the condition given in the guidelines dated 14.7.2014 issued by the Election Commission of India will not apply in the case of the petitioner due to no retrospective application of the said guidelines, because admittedly the said guidelines has been made applicable to the petitioner being indirectly involved in the election process vide communication dated 20.10.2014.

¶34

The further submission has been made that the petitioner was earlier posted at Gomia in the district of Bokaro from where he was transferred vide order dated 3.12.2013 to the District of Dhanbad and remained there for about six months and thereafter he was transferred from Dhanbad to Nawadih in the district of Bokaro vide notification dated 13.6.2014.

¶35

Hence, the submission has been made that the period of three years will be counted from 13.6.2014, the period when the petitioner was posted in the district of Bokaro and not from the earlier date of posting in the district of Bokaro because he was transferred from Bokaro to Dhanbad and remained at Dhanbad for six months in the meanwhile.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Condition No.(iii) of the guidelines dated 14.7.2014 wherein it has been stated that all such officers be posted out of their home district or out of the districts where they have completed or will complete on the aforesaid date tenure of three years out of the last four years immediately. The emphasis shall be given on the word 'tenure' as well as 'immediately'.

¶37

The submission has been made that the tenure of posting of the petitioner in the district of Bokaro will be counted from 13.6.2014 because of the specific averment in Clause-(iii) that 'three years out of

¶38

-6-

¶39

last four years immediately'.

¶40

From perusal of the order dated 16.10.2014 it appears that all these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the authorities and it has also not been decided on the basis of the specific condition mentioned in Clause-(iii) to the effect that the tenure of the posting of the petitioner in the district of Bokaro will be from 13.6.2014 or it will also include the earlier period of posting in the district of Bokaro.

¶41

Since the order has been passed by not taking into consideration the said specific Clause and also not taking into consideration the applicability of the guidelines of the Election Commission of India dated 14^th July, 2014 and subsequent decision of Government dated 20.10.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Chief Election Commissioner-cum-Joint Secretary, Cabinet (Election) Department, Government of Jharkhand on the date when the order of transfer was issued on 8.9.2014 and, as such, the order dated 16.10.2014 cannot be said to be the order in right perspective and, thus, the authorities are required to pass a reasoned order in the light of the discussion made herein above, hence the order dated 16.10.2014 is quashed.

¶42

The matter is remanded before the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand for taking decision in the light of the guidelines of Election Commission of India.

¶43

The Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to pass order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 23. This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶44

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J)

¶45

Shamim/

Ravi Ranjan Verma v. Food Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ranjan Verma v. Food Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagina Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ajay Kumar Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Radhey Shyam Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dr.Sheo Prasanna Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Krishna Deo Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shankar Mahto Vs Human Resources Department