Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 233 (JHR)

Shaktidhar Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-29

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order as contained in memo No. 1824 dated 14.09.2017 issued under the signature of respondent No. 3, as far as it relates to the petitioner whereby his name is included at Sl. No. 4 and he has been transferred from the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Ramgarh to Security of the Hon''ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made to allow him to discharge his duties in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Ramgarh taking into consideration his old age and several ailments. 3. The facts as derived from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed and joined on the post of Constable on 01.06.1982 in Giridih district and worked to the satisfaction of all concerned and no complaint of any kind was made against him. The date of birth of the petitioner is 29.08.1959 and as such, he is due to superannuate from service w.e.f. 31.08.2019. During his service tenure from 1982, the petitioner was transferred from one place to another and he always gave his joining at the transferred place and worked there to the satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. There is no any adverse remarks in his service career and presently, he is posted at Mandu as Special Branch Officer for the last two years i.e. from 2015 and he has not even completed the tenure of three years. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is suffering from several ailments such as Diabeties, High Blood Pressure and Thyroid and as the petitioner was transferred, he filed a representation before the respondent-authorities requesting therein for stay of the transfer order in view of the aforesaid ailments as mentioned above. But as no order has been passed on his representation, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court. 4. Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that at the fag end of service any employee of the State Govt. even if a Police Officer cannot be transferred. But as no order has been passed on his representation, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court. 4. Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that at the fag end of service any employee of the State Govt. even if a Police Officer cannot be transferred. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards Rule 778(iii) of the Police Manual and argues that the said Rule is very clear that at the fag end of service, the employee has to be transferred to his place of choice and it has to be considered by the respondents. In the instant case, petitioner is going to superannuate in the year 2019 and his case is fully covered by the said Rule and as such, request was made by way of representation but no heed has been paid and no orders have been passed till date. 5. Per contra no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that the petitioner has been transferred by way of chain transfer. It is not a case that the petitioner has been transferred individually. It is not a right of an employee to stay at a particular place for long years. However, since the petitioner has represented before the respondents, the same shall be disposed of with the reasoned order. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, the petitioner has been transferred and upon transfer, he has filed representation before the respondents. Though transfer is not a right of an employee but the respondents, in violation of statutory provisions, has issued the order of transfer of the petitioner and as such, the same has to be looked into and the transfer order, if it is dehors the rules, has to be stayed or cancelled. Though transfer is not a right of an employee but the respondents, in violation of statutory provisions, has issued the order of transfer of the petitioner and as such, the same has to be looked into and the transfer order, if it is dehors the rules, has to be stayed or cancelled. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has taken shelter of Rule 778 (iii) of the Police Manual, which is reproduced herein below:- "778(iii) Officers and men on the verge of retirement (two years or less to go) may be posted to their home districts on request if exigencies of public service permit it." The Police Manual has got the force of law as per sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act. 7. As the representation of the petitioner is pending, I hereby direct the respondent No. 3 to take decision on his pending representation and if the petitioner comes within the ambit/ purview of the said Rule, a suitable order be passed in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.