Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 201 (MAN)

Laishram Badal Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-10-11

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Impugning the transfer and posting order dated 7.7.2022 issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: According to the petitioner, he joined service as Lecturer in Higher Secondary School, Government of Manipur, pursuant to the order dated 26.10.1988. Being an incident of service, it is stated that the petitioner always complied with the transfer and posting orders issued time and again. The petitioner was promoted as Vice Principal vide proceedings dated 30.10.2018 and was further promoted as Principal vide proceedings dated 8.3.2019. The petitioner was subjected to regular transfers while he was holding various cadres. The petitioner was working at Nambol Higher Secondary School pursuant to the transfer order dated 20.7.2019. When things stood thus, the petitioner was served with a transfer order dated 7.7.2022, transferring him to Vungzagen Higher Secondary School, Churachandpur and in his place the second respondent was posted. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The main plank of the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 7.7.2022 has been passed in contravention of the Notification dated 12.5.2022 in supersession of the earlier Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017 laying down certain conditions to regulate the transfer and posting of government servants. To fortify the said submission, a reference of Clause III(vii) of the said notification was made, which contemplates that two years before the retirement, the official may be posted at the Home District, but in the case on hand such consideration was never made. That apart, as per Clause III (viii) of the notification, the transfers should normally be effected only in the month of April/May, but the impugned transfer order is passed in the month of July. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is at the fag end of his career and is due to retire on 28.2.2023. Thus, the petitioner has about 7 months of service left and by virtue of the impugned order, he is posted at a far off place only to accommodate the second respondent. Thus, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 7.7.2022. 5. Thus, the petitioner has about 7 months of service left and by virtue of the impugned order, he is posted at a far off place only to accommodate the second respondent. Thus, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 7.7.2022. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent justified the transfer order and submitted that transfer is an incident of service and the writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be slow to interfere with such orders. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, who has been posted to the place held by the petitioner, justified the transfer order and further filed M.C.No.276 of 2022, to vacate the interim order dated 12.7.2022 passed by this court. To buttress his argument that a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting, he placed reliance on a judgment of this court dated 22.12.2021 in W.P. (C) No.854 of 2021. 7. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. 8. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, it is apposite to refer to the relevant conditions of the 'Policy for transfer and posting of government employees of the State of Manipur' issued by the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, vide notification dated 12.5.2022: 'III. General Conditions: ... (vii) As far as possible, officials may be posted at their Home District, if the Official so chooses, 2 (two) years before their retirement so as to facilitate ease in processing pension matter. (viii) Transfers shall normally be effected in the month of April/May after the financial year is over so that disruption of work is minimal. ...' 9. The notification dated 12.5.2022 emphatically states that it is issued in supersession of the earlier policy notified on 5.12.2017. It is beyond any demur that the notification dated 12.5.2022 is governing the transfer and postings of government servants. 10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has over seven months of service left for attaining the age of superannuation. The notification stipulates that to the extent possible, the official may be posted in his/her Home District, if the official so chooses, two years before his/her retirement so as to facilitate ease in processing pension matter. 10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has over seven months of service left for attaining the age of superannuation. The notification stipulates that to the extent possible, the official may be posted in his/her Home District, if the official so chooses, two years before his/her retirement so as to facilitate ease in processing pension matter. However, in contravention of the said clause of the notification, the petitioner has been transferred to a far off hill district during the fag end of his career. It is not the case of the respondent authority that the petitioner had earlier objected to any of his transfers. It is seen from the records available that the petitioner had been subjected to transfer for over 4/5 times and never he raised any objection to it. 11. That apart, Clause III(viii) of the notification dated 12.5.2022 postulates that transfers shall normally be effected in the month of April/May after the financial year is over so that disruption of work is minimal. In the instant case, the transfer order is issued in the month of July, 2022. It is apparently in violation of the notification dated 12.5.2022 and by the time the petitioner acclimatizes to the situation prevailing the transferred place, he would be retiring on attaining the age of superannuation. 12. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the second respondent dated 22.12.2021 in W.P. (C) No.854 of 2021 would be of no avail to the second respondent inasmuch as the said judgment lays down the general proposition relating to challenge to a transfer order, but is not passed after considering the notification dated 12.5.2022, which has been issued by the respondent authority in supersession of all the earlier government notifications. 13. Thus, in my considered opinion, the transfer order violates the very transfer policy of the respondent authority. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondent authority that the petitioner has been transferred on account of any complaint, etc. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 7.7.2022 is set aside. M.C.No.276 of 2022 filed by the second respondent is dismissed. 15. There will be no order as to costs.