Diganta Kumar Medhi vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 607 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010029582021




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1062/2021

         DIGANTA KUMAR MEDHI
         S/O- LT. BHOGNATH MEDHI, PERMANENT R/O- PHULAGURI, P.O.
         PHULAGURI, P.S. RAHA, DIST.- NAGAON, INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
         GUWAHATI (S), ZONE-A, KAMRUP (M)



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY., GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF EXCISE,
         DISPUR, GHY, ASSAM, PIN- 781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
         ASSAM
          HOUSEFED COMPLEX
          DISPUR
          PIN- 781006

         3:THE JOINT SECRETARY
          GOVT. OF ASSAM
          DEPTT. OF EXCISE
          DISPUR
          GHY
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781006

         4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
          KAMRUP
          OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER
          (EXCISE BRANCH) KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781001
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/3

            5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
             OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER
             GOLAGHAT
            ASSAM
             PIN- 785621

            6:BIBHU PHUKAN
             INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
             DERGAON
             P.O. DERGAON
             DIST.- GOLAGHAT
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78570

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS M D CHOWDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

                                            ORDER

Date : 22.02.2021

Heard Mrs. M. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Excise Department.

It is submitted by Mrs. M. D. Choudhury, that the petitioner who is due for superannuation on 31.12.2021 has been transferred to the post of Inspector of Excise, Srirampur Excise Check Gate from his present place of posting at Zone-A Guwahati (Sadar) vide transfer order no. Ex 25/2021/21, dated 08.02.2021 issued by the Secretary Excise Department, Govt. of Assam by completely ignoring the fact that he is about to retire on superannuation and he is engaged in the preparation of NRC. It is also submitted that the petitioner is suffering from some physical ailments like, diabetics and enlarged prostate gland for in which he needs frequent medical check up and assistance from the family members. Therefore, his transfer is unreasonable and not as per transfer policy of the State Government.

Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is against a vacant post and it is issued specifically because of the direction given by the Election Commission of India keeping in view the forthcoming assembly election in the State. The learned counsel also submitted that the NRC has been published and the petitioner's service is no longer required. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of S. C. Saxena Vs. Union of Page No.# 3/3

India and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583. The relevant paragraph of which reads as follows:

"6. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Apart therefrom, if the appellant really had some genuine difficulty in reporting for work at Tejpur, he could have reported for duty at Amritsar where he was so posted. We too decline to believe the story of his remaining sick. Assuming there was some sickness, we are not satisfied that it prevented him from joining duty either at Tezpur or at Amritsar. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital proves this point. In the circumstances, we too are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of the misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty."

The learned counsel however, submitted that considering the age of the petitioner, the respondents may consider his request if a representation is submitted but after joining his place of posting.

It appears from the documents submitted by the petitioner that he has been at his place of posting since 2015. Therefore, he comes under the category of employees who must be moved from their stations as per the direction given by the Election Commission of India.

Taking into consideration, the above submission, I find no ground on which the transfer order can be interfered with. However, in view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioner may submit a representation to the concerned authorities after joining his new place of posting and, if he does, the same should be considered sympathetically within a reasonable time, in case there are posts lying vacant in the nearby places.

The petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant