[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Sikkim High Court
Tulushi Sharma Dhakal vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 13 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
W.P. (C) No. 70 of 2025
Tulsi Sharma Dhakal,
S/o of Mr. Lekh Nath Sharma,
R/o Village Karmithang,
P.O. Upper Pendam,
PIN: 737132,
District Pakyong, Sikkim. .......Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Sikkim,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Tashiling Secretariat,
Gangtok-737101.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Room No.: 156-A, Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110011.
3. The Mission Director,
National Health Mission,
Room No.: 343-A, Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110011.
4. The Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Sikkim,
Tashiling Secretariat,
Gangtok - 737101.
5. The Mission Director,
State Health Society (National Health Mission),
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Sikkim,
Tashiling Secretariat,
Gangtok - 737101.
6. Dr. Tempo Gyalsen Bhutia,
Former Chief Medical Officer,
(At present, Director, Health Services,
PME/SIECB),
District Hospital, Singtam,
Singtam - 737134, Sikkim.
7. Dr. Solomit Lepcha,
District Reproducing and Child Health Officer,
National Health Mission,
District Hospital, Singtam,
Singtam - 737134, Sikkim.
8. Shri Shisir Kumar Tamang,
Senior Accounts Officer,
District Hospital, Singtam,
Singtam - 737134, Sikkim.
9. Shri Dharnidhar Mishra,
District Program Manager,
National Health Mission,
District Hospital, Singtam,
Singtam - 737134, Sikkim.
10. Shri Youden Thomas Lepcha,
District Data Assistant,
National Health Mission,
District Hospital, Singtam,
Singtam - 737134, Sikkim. ..... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Nawin Kiran Pradhan and Ms. Rajshree
Chettri, Advocates with Mr. Tulsi Sharma
Dhakal, Petitioner in person.
For Respondent Nos. : Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Additional Advocate
1, 4 & 5 General with Mr. S.K. Chettri, Government
Advocate, Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant
Government Advocate and Ms. Neera
Thapa, Law Officer, Health and Family
Welfare Department, Government of Sikkim.
For Respondent Nos. : Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor
2&3 General of India with Ms. Sittal Balmiki and
Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondent Nos. : In person.
6 to 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment reserved : 12/02/2026
Date of Judgment pronounced : 13/02/2026
Date of Judgment uploaded : 13/02/2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, CHIEF JUSTICE
...
JUDGEMENT
This Writ Petition has been filed by an employee who claims to
have been subjected to mental distress and humiliation in his workplace.
The cause of action arises from his transfer from the post of District
Accounts Manager to that of Finance and Logistics Officer (FLO) in the
office of the National Health Mission. According to the Petitioner, this
transfer was not a routine administrative decision but a consequence of
complaints he had raised against certain officials regarding alleged
mismanagement of funds. It also appears from the record that certain
complaints have, in turn, been made against the Petitioner. Feeling
personally aggrieved and asserting that the circumstances deprived him
of his right to work with dignity and self-respect, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
2. Perused the pleadings and today I had the advantage of hearing
learned counsel for the parties, the Petitioner and the Respondents, who
also appeared in person.
3. Upon hearing the parties, this Court was of the considered view
that an interaction between them, coupled with an opportunity to
understand each other's concerns, would likely resolve the issues
highlighted in the present case. The dispute, on the face of the record,
does not border on any violation of fundamental rights or statutory
employment rights conferred upon the Petitioner. Rather, it appears to
stem from misunderstandings arising in the workplace, where
professional pressures often erode cordial relationships founded on
mutual respect and dignity. Pursuant to interaction in chamber, the
parties have amicably resolved their differences and have agreed to
move forward in their professional engagement with mutual respect and
dignity.
4. It is often observed that, although a workplace is metaphorically
described as a place of worship, it is not always equipped to address
personal grievances that do not directly relate to the discharge of official
responsibilities, but instead arise from a lack of effective communication
among individuals. Such gaps in communication frequently give rise to
animosity and hostility, culminating in allegations and counter-allegations
that ultimately strain professional relationships. In the present case, the
Petitioner appears to have perceived his transfer as an act of humiliation,
believing that it had wounded his personal dignity and self-respect. Had
there been an effective channel of communication through which the
matter could have been placed in proper perspective before the
authorities responsible for governance, the present proceedings might
well have been avoided.
5. Be that as it may, I find Petitioner has given an opportunity to
everyone involved in this case by bringing them to the forum of this
Court to understand each other. Each one involved in the organization
has his/her own responsibility and they should not look to others to
blame for anything they feel is adverse against them and their interests.
They had to re-introspect themselves and find a solution rather than
blaming others. This would give momentum to such employees in
building relationships based on his/her responsibilities.
6. The officials appeared before us were the Respondents herein
submitted before this Court that they have no intention to proceed
against the Petitioner based on the complaints they have received. That
means all issues have been concluded and the Petitioner has no other
grievance being posted to him as a FLO (supra) and both parties agreed
that they will work together based on their responsibility to achieve the
best interest for the organization.
7. Recording the submission that Respondents are not intending to
proceed against the Petitioner against any action based on the
complaints, I close this Writ Petition appreciating both Petitioner and
Respondents who appeared before me in person, bringing the issue to an
amicable conclusion.
8. The Writ Petition, being WP(C) No.70 of 2025, (Tulsi Sharma
Dhakal Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.) stands disposed of.
Chief Justice
pm/ami
