High Court of Meghalaya
Berick R Marak vs . Meghalaya Power Transmission on 8 February, 2022
Serial No. 1
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No. 18/2020 with
MC (WA) No. 16/2020
Date of Order: 08.02.2022
Berick R Marak Vs. Meghalaya Power Transmission
Corporation Ltd. & 3 Others.
Berick R Marak Vs. Meghalaya Power Transmission
Corporation Ltd. & 3 Others.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant (s) : Mr. HL Shangreiso, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with
Ms. R. Colney, GA
The appeal arises out of an order dismissing a writ petition following
the appellant's complaint that he had been subjected to frequent transfers
and the transfers were only to harass the appellant. It is evident that the
appellant was transferred on November 27, 2019 from one office of the
employer in Williamnagar to another. However, within the next six months,
by the order under challenge dated May 21, 2020 the appellant was
transferred to Nohkum, East Jaintia Hills from Williamnagar.
In the writ petition, the appellant claimed that he had been singled out
for repeated transfers and that he had suffered at least three transfers in the
previous year or so and there was no basis to the petitioner being shunted
out of the relevant office in Williamnagar within six months of being posted
there. The appellant refers to the reasons indicated, inter alia, at paragraph 9
of the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondent employer before the
Writ Court. The appellant seeks to suggest that specious reasons were
proffered and it is apparent that someone higher up in the organization has
some axe to grind against the petitioner and a vindictive attitude has been
taken by the employer against the appellant.
The law as its stands now recognises the right of an employer, even
an employer answering to the description of a State in Article 12 of the
Constitution, to transfer any employee on the administrative exigencies of
the employer and without interference by the Court except in exceptional
circumstances. Though the underlying theme of the writ petition is that the
appellant was being harassed by the employer or by his seniors, no case of
malice in fact is made out or any reason indicated why the appellant's
superiors or the employer may be interested in harassing the appellant.
Indeed, there does not appear to have been much inconvenience occasioned
to the appellant, leave alone harass him, since the previous transfer before
the impugned order of transfer merely required the appellant to attend
another office of the employer in Williamnagar and cannot be treated as an
act of harassment or the like. It is true that the impugned order of transfer
required the appellant to move out of Williamnagar and into a town in the
East Jaintia Hills, but if the employer deems it necessary for administrative
reasons to post the concerned employee at a particular place, unless a grave
case is made out which makes the treatment of the employee reek of
harassment or vendetta, the Court would, ordinarily, not interfere in the
administrative decision of the employer. As to the reasons indicated in the
affidavit, it may suffice to say that only the substance of the statements is
important: that for better administration, it was necessary to effect the
transfer. The reasons given in support of an order of transfer are, ordinarily,
not justiciable.
The judgment and order impugned dated July 23, 2020 applied the
appropriate principles and took relevant considerations into account in
dismissing the petition against the order of transfer. No case is made out to
interfere with the judgment and order impugned.
WA No. 18 of 2020 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
MC (WA) No. 16 of 2020 is disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
08.02.2022
"Santosh, P.S."
