High Court of Meghalaya
Sri Bidul Goswami vs . The North Eastern Electric Power on 12 August, 2022
Serial No. 10
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 299 of 2022
Date of Order: 12.08.2022
Sri Bidul Goswami Vs. The North Eastern Electric Power
Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.J. Saikia, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Deka, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. V. Kumar, Adv.
Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.
Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice.
Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. Kumar,
learned counsel is present on behalf of all the respondents, so no further
notice is called for.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of a
clear direction from this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 passed in
WP(C) No. 279 of 2022, for the respondents to reconsider the
representation of the petitioner in accordance with the Transfer Policy, the
same was not done and by letter dated 05.08.2022 which ostensibly
disposed of the representation, the petitioner was directed to report
immediately at the new place of posting at Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh.
Learned Senior counsel submits that a bare perusal of the impugned
letter dated 05.08.2022 reflects the non-application of mind and haste in
which the representation was disposed of. Learned Senior counsel has
drawn the attention of the Court to the first paragraph of the letter itself,
which he submits refers to a representation dated 29.07.2022, when in fact
there exists no such representation of such date. It is submitted that the
decision did not take into consideration the representation 15.06.2022,
wherein the hardship faced by the petitioner on account of being the sole
care giver to his mother, who is stated to be half paralyzed and suffering
from various other ailments had been detailed. The Transfer Policy of the
NEEPCO at clause 11.3, he submits, has made allowance for such situations
wherein, an employee is deployed at any location of their choice or nearest
to the location where facilities for treatment of special diseases are
available. He also submits that the request by way of the representation
dated 15.06.2022 is not on tenure, but only on the condition of the health of
the mother of the petitioner.
Learned Senior counsel has sought to distinguish the present case
from the judgment dated 08.06.2022 passed by this Court in WA No. 24 of
2022 (NEEPCO vs. Poresh Kumar Nath) and has placed reliance on
judgment dated 27.08.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 258 of 2018 and WP(C)
No. 319 of 2018. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 1494. He therefore, prays
that in the interim directions may be passed for maintenance of status quo.
Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no cause of
interference as the representation as directed by this Court has been
examined and final orders has been passed thereon, rejecting the prayer of
the petitioner. Heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment dated
08.06.2022 passed by this Court in WA No. 24 of 2022 (NEEPCO vs.
Poresh Kumar Nath) to buttress his contention. He further submits that the
petitioner is bound to join his place his posting and not to engage in
litigation.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
This Court by order dated 27.09.2022 passed in the earlier writ
petition WP(C) No. 279 of 2022, had directed the respondents to consider
the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the Transfer Policy
as categorical grounds had been laid out therein, that is, ill health of the
petitioner's mother. The said representation dated 15.06.2022 however, on
perusal of the impugned letter dated 05.08.2022 appears to have not been
addressed in the correct perspective. The letter dated 05.08.2022 only
alludes to two judgments to justify rejection of the prayer of the petitioner
and that the petitioner has had a long tenure of 23 years of being posted in
a soft area. The ground of exigency, as is normal in such cases has also been
taken, but however clause 11.3 of the Transfer Policy which deals with
consideration to be given to employees in connection with health issues of
self and dependents, is absent from the impugned letter. Coupled with this,
from the face of the impugned letter itself, it can be discerned that the same
had been passed in a perfunctory manner and in undue haste, inasmuch as,
the date of the representation recorded therein is incorrect, as the same has
been recorded as 29.07.2022 when in fact the same had been preferred on
15.06.2022.
Though this Court is not inclined to interfere in a transfer matter or
to issue any interim directions at this stage staying the same, however, as it
was expected that the respondents on the earlier directions of this Court,
consider the matter in its entirety, which appears to have not been done, the
respondents are therefore directed to file necessary affidavit and to produce
the relevant records on the next date.
List this matter on 31.08.2022.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
12.08.2022
"V. Lyndem-PS"
