Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 104 (TRI)

Sampa Danda (Das) v. State of Tripura

2022-03-05

S.TALAPATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. SK Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure-P5 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from her present place of posting at IGM Hospital, Agartala to Sabroom Sub-Divisional Hospital of South Tripura. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: a. why the impugned order dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure-P5) shall not be interfered with and b. why the petitioner may not be deprived of her medical facilities and to look after her and her husband's well being. 2. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that before her posting to IGM Hospital, the petitioner had served in different remote localities. That apart, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has highlighted that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and she was under treatment of the specialist doctors at Agartala. One of the prescriptions of such treatment issued by Dr. Amitava Roy on 13.09.2021 is enclosed as annexure-P6 to the writ petition. 3. Seeking re-consideration of the said transfer order, the petitioner made a representation on 17.02.2022 (Annexure-P7 to the writ petition). But Mr. Deb, learned counsel has pointed out that the said representation has not been considered by the competent authority, as yet. 4. Mr. P Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the grounds of challenge as put forth by the petitioner are inadequate to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.01.2022 inasmuch as, there is no allegation regarding the legality or mala fide in transferring the petitioner. Hence, this court must be loathe in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. 5. Having appreciated the submission of the respective counsel for the parties, this court would state that an order of transfer is ordinarily not interfered by this court unless the illegality and mala fide are pleaded and proved. 6. However, it appears that the petitioner has certain medical issues and the competent authority, the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura has not considered those difficulties of the petitioner as yet, even the said representation. 7. 6. However, it appears that the petitioner has certain medical issues and the competent authority, the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura has not considered those difficulties of the petitioner as yet, even the said representation. 7. True it is that this court does not usually interfere with the transfer order but at the same time, it is the duty of the employer to look after the difficulties of the employees that he or she might suffer for such transfer order. 8. Having observed thus, the respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-P7 to the writ petition) in the earliest. 9. Till the said representation is considered and the petitioner is communicated its outcome, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join the new place of posting. 10. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 11. A copy of this order be furnished to the counsel for the parties in the course of the day.