Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 335 (GAU)

Rabi Sarkar v. State of Tripura

2012-03-13

UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is an Agriculture officer, working in the office of the Director of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, for quashing the transfer order dated 16.10.2011 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the decision taken on 08.02.2012 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by the respondents on the application of the father of the petitioner, wherein the prayer for modification of transfer was negated, along with interim prayer. 2. Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of the State respondents at the motion stage. 3. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage itself. 4. The brief facts are as follows: - The petitioner joined the post of Agriculture officer in the year 1999 and worked in the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Dharmanagar, North Tripura for about two years. Thereafter he was transferred to the office of Research-cum- Demonstration Farm, A.D.Nagar, Agartala and wherefrom he was transferred to the office of the Director of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, respondent No. 3, in the month of July 2006. While he was working in the office of the respondent No. 3, he had received the impugned order of transfer dated 16.10.2011, wherein, along with the petitioner, other 51 Agriculture officers were also transferred. The grievance of the petitioner is that his motherless daughter, aged about 7 years, who is a student of Class-I in Pranavananda Vidya Mandir, Agartala, is totally dependent on him and more so, his parents, who are old and ailing, are also dependent on him and unless this order of transfer is modified and/or stayed by the respondents, it would create a family problem for him, particularly, for his motherless daughter. It is also contended that some other employees, who were transferred by the same transfer order, made representations and their representations were considered and ultimately in some cases the transfer order was modified or stayed. It is also contended that some other employees, who were transferred by the same transfer order, made representations and their representations were considered and ultimately in some cases the transfer order was modified or stayed. The present petitioner had also made representation on 21.10.2011 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) to the respondent No. 3, wherein he had requested for staying the impugned order of transfer and/or modification of the same, but the said representation has not yet disposed of. It is stated in the writ petition that his father, Sri Indra Mohan Sarkar, also made a representation to the Hon'ble Minister, Agriculture for staying and/or modifying the impugned order of transfer on humanitarian ground, but the said representation was not considered by the respondent-authority. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-employer, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while urging for the relief sought for would contend that the petitioner has no right to be posted in any particular place, but obviously, an employee like the petitioner, can expect that the employer would consider the representation with human touch. In the instant case, though the petitioner as well as his father made representations, but the authority concerned has not yet disposed of the representation filed by the petitioner and the representation made by the father of the petitioner though was disposed of, but not considered the grievances stated therein. Learned senior counsel further contended that every citizen has a right to submit a representation to the welfare Government and its officials and it is the duty of the Government and its officials to consider the representation either by way of accepting the contention of the representation or by way of rejecting the same, but the authority has no right to say that they would not consider the representation, particularly when, the same authority has considered the representations of other similarly situated persons. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate in terms of the order of this Court dated 23.02.2012 has obtained necessary instructions and submitted that the representation of the father of the petitioner was considered by the appropriate authority and ultimately rejected the same. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate in terms of the order of this Court dated 23.02.2012 has obtained necessary instructions and submitted that the representation of the father of the petitioner was considered by the appropriate authority and ultimately rejected the same. He further contended that transfer is an incident of service, an officer like the petitioner has no right to be posted in any particular place according to his choice, rather the Government has the power to transfer its employees in any place within the State in the public interest and the order impugned has also been issued in the public interest. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate again contended that the Court has no power to decide where and how the employer will utilize the services of its employees, rather the employer is the best judge to decide who should be transferred where and how and the Court can only interfere with an order of transfer when the same is issued either with mala fide intention or with an oblique motive, but in the instant case no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in his petition. The only contention of the petitioner is that due to his transfer, his motherless child will suffer. 7. This Court has given anxious thought to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also has perused the impugned order of transfer. According to this Court, the submission of Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate, has some force and thus, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order issued by the respondents transferring the petitioner from his present place of posting to Dhalai District, but at the same time it would also not be proper for this Court to reject the prayer of the petitioner straightway as the official respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3, has not yet considered and disposed of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and not only that though the respondent-State had disposed of the representation of the petitioner's father, but the same was not considered as it appeared from the letter dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). 8. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the writ petition is disposed of with a simple direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura, along with a copy of this writ petition as well as the order of this Court within a period of seven days from today and the Commissioner-cum-Secretary shall dispose of the same within a week from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned order and till then, the status quo, as on today, in respect of the petitioner, shall be maintained. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. No costs.