Karuna Brahma v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

ORDER

22.11.2023 Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. C. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health.

¶2This writ petition is filed by the petitioner impugning the order of transfer dated 10.11.2023 whereby three persons including the petitioner were transferred from their existing place of posting to the new place of posting. The petitioner's name appears at Sl. No. 1 of the said order. By the subsequent order, dated 14.11.2023, additional responsibility has given to the petitioner as District Programme Manager in the District of Barpeta till the regular incumbent joins in that place.

¶3The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that notwithstanding there being a transfer policy in place in respect of NHM employees, the petitioner is transferred out contrary to the said policy. As per the said policy, no request for transfer will be entertained until the employee serves for a continuous period of three years in the place of posting. However, the Mission Director, NRHM reserves the right to transfer or depute any employees at any time if the need arises in the interest of the programme.

¶4Mr. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel submits that ordinarily as a matter of practice, employees are transferred after completion of three years, however, the petitioner had only been posted in his place of posting for two years. That apart, his mother surviving is a cancer patient and his father suffering from liver problem and as such he being only the son is required to attend the medical Page No.# 3/4 duties also. They are not in a position to accompanying him to new place of posting. All these issues he had been raised by the petitioner before the authorities by filing representation dated 15.11.2023 which according to the petitioner were not being attended to by the respondent authorities. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the transfer policy in place has not been uniformly followed. Therefore, some persons are allowed to work in places for more than a decade. Mr. Roy has referred to a list of names enclosed to the writ petition at Annexure-12. According to Mr. Roy, names appearing in Sl. No. 11, 12 and some other persons who are being allowed to be posted at their place of posting for more than a decade.

¶5Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the NHM submits that even as per the transfer policy, the Mission Director NRHM reserves the right to transfer or depute any employee at any time if the need arises. Therefore, the question of having mandatory period of three years will not arise even under the transfer policy. He, however fairly submits that he has no instructions, if any had been order passed on the representation in the meantime.

¶6Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings on records, this Court is of the view that ordinarily transfer and posting unless shown to be in malafide not in public interest, ordinarily constitutional Courts would loathe to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 226 under judicial review for interfering with such orders.

¶7In the facts of the case, however, without entering into the merits of the case, considering the fact that there is a representation pending before the authority concerned, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice will suffice if the respondents are directed to redress the grievances of the petitioner as per the representation filed and take into consideration the difficulties faced Page No.# 4/4 by the petitioner which are urged before the Court. It is expected that the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically in view of the fact that his parents are suffering from terminal illness and it is stated that they are not in a position to accompany him to new place of posting.

¶8Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶9The representation shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the representation is disposed of, the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 shall not be given effect to.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010264102023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6782/2023o KARUNAoBRAHMAo SONoOFoMR.oAJOYoKUMARoBRAHMA,oPERMANENToRESIDENToOFo SWRANGoNAGAR,oNO.1oCHAPHAGURI,oDHALIGAONoPT,oPIN-o783385,o DISTRICT-oCHIRANG,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOF ASSAM,oHEALTHoANDoFAMILYoWELFAREoDEPARTMENT,oDISPUR,o GUWAHATI-o781006 2:MISSIONoDIRECTOR oNATIONALoHEALTHoMISSION oASSAM 3:THEoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIONERoCUMoCHAIRPERSON oDISTRICToHEALTHoSOCIETY oMORIGAON 4:THEoJOINToDIRECTORoOFoHEALTHoSERVICESoCUMoMEMBERo SECRETARY oDISTRICToHEALTHoSOCIETY oMORIGAOo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oJYOTIRMOYoROYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oSC,oHEALTHoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA