Manipur High Court
Laishram Badal Kumar Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 11 October, 2022
1
Digitally
JOHN signed by
JOHN TELEN
TELEN KOM
Date:
2022.10.14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
KOM 16:48:18
+05'30' AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No. 524 of 2022
Laishram Badal Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o (L)
L.Ibohal Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Leikai, PO Lamphel &
PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Education/S)
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, PO & PS
Imphal-795001.
2. Shri Laishram Phulchand Meetei, S/o(L) Kala of Kwakeithel
Laishram Leikai, PO Imphal, PS Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
.... Respondents
With
MC(WP(C)No.276 of 2022
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 1
2
Shri. Laishram Phulchand Meetei, S/o (L) Kala of Kwakeithel
Laishram Leikai, PO Imphal, & PS Singjamei, West District,
Manipur-795001.
....Applicant
-Versus-
1. Laishram Badal Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years, s/o
(L) L. Ibohal Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Leikai, PO
Lamphel & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
2. The State of Manipur through the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Education/S),
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, PO & PS
Imphal- 795001.
.....Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. H. S Paonam, Sr.Adv.
For the Respondents : CH. Sundari, GA for R1,
Mr. I. Lalitkumar, Sr. Adv for R2.
Date of reserved : 16.06.2022
Date of order : 11.10.2022.
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 2
3
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[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.
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 3
4
[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] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent
justified the transfer order and submitted that transfer is an incident of
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 4
5
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:
...
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 5
(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. 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
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 6
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
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 7
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.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 Page 8
