Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 132 (MAN)

S. Somokanta v. Union of India

2022-07-19

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 538 of 2021 and Mr. Salam Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG for the respondents. 2. Mr. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case that he has filed the present writ petitioner seeking the prayers as follows : '(i) Admit the writ petition and Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Order/directive (s) should not be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer bearing No. T.IX.01/2021-DA-3 - SCT-2021 Dtd. 30.07.2021 ( at Annexure A/2 ) and relieving order dated 17.08.2021 (at Annexure-A/9 ) in respect of the petitioner as it was issued illegally and arbitrarily and also in violation of the principle of natural justice and against the Standing Order 9/15, in the facts and circumstance of the present petition; (ii) To show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order/directive (s ) should not be issued directing the respondents for extension of one year at composite Hospital, Imphal or transfer the petitioner at composite Hospital, Hyderabad against the vacant post of SI/RGFR under its Standing Order No. 09/2015.' 3.Mr. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner has raised various grounds in this writ petition to challenge the order of transfer dated 30.07.2021. 4. When the matter is taken up for admission on 26.08.2021, this Court admitted the writ petition, issued the notice to the Respondents and granted order of interim stay the operation of the impugned transfer order if the petitioner is not already relieved till 05.10.2021. The said interim order was periodically extended. 5. After receiving the notice, Mr. Salam Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG has appeared and filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents on 10.11.2021. Since the pleadings were completed, the matter was directed to be posted for final hearing today. 6. When the matter is taken up today, Mr. The said interim order was periodically extended. 5. After receiving the notice, Mr. Salam Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG has appeared and filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents on 10.11.2021. Since the pleadings were completed, the matter was directed to be posted for final hearing today. 6. When the matter is taken up today, Mr. Devananda represented that though the petitioner has raised various grounds for challenging the transfer order in the writ petition but during the course of argument, he made representation that the respondents may be directed to retain the petitioner for 1 (one) year in the present place or to accommodate him in anyone of the 2 (two) places at Hyderabad and another at Bangalore where the vacancies are available to enable him to give medical treatment to his mother as per medical report which is enclosed in Annexure-A/3 of the writ petition. Except the above representations, Mr. Devananda has not raised any other grounds. 7. Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG for the respondents represented that the petitioner has already completed the tenure. Mr. Samarjeet also represented that as per the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, as on date, there is no vacancy available in the said two places at Hyderabad and Bangalore. 8. Mr. Samarjeet also further submitted that considering the vacant position at Composite Hospital, Muzaffarpur, Bihar this petitioner was transferred. If this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's request to post him either at Hyderabad or Bangalore, the respondents are ready to consider the petitioner's case based on the availability of vacancies. Therefore, Mr. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG represented that the petitioner may be directed to give a fresh representation by requesting the respondents to post him either at Hyderabad or Bangalore. 9. Therefore, Mr. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG represented that the petitioner may be directed to give a fresh representation by requesting the respondents to post him either at Hyderabad or Bangalore. 9. Therefore, considering the nature of arguments advanced by both the counsels and the counsel for the petitioner has not raised any ground to challenge the transfer order, I am inclined to consider the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and to pass the following orders : (a) the writ petition is disposed of; (b) the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation within a period of two weeks to the respondents by requesting the respondents to post him either at Hyderabad or Bangalore from the date of receipt of order; (c) on receipt of the said representation, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to accommodate the petitioner either at Hyderabad or Bangalore if vacancies are available. 10. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.