Manipur High Court
Shri K.C. Daisinlung Aged About 52 Years vs Divisional Manager on 8 March, 2022
Digitally
signed by
LHAINEI LHAINEICHO IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
CHONG NG HAOKIP
Date:
HAOKIP 2022.03.08
14:05:28
+05'30' AT IMPHAL
WP (C) No. 27 of 2021
1. Shri K.C. Daisinlung aged about 52 years, S/o (L) Ramkhuanang
KC, R/o Paomai Colony, Heingang Road, P.O. & P.S. Heingang,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795010
... PETITIONER/S
-Versus -
1. Divisional Manager, Life Corporation of India (LIC), Jeevan
Prakash, Meherpur, Silchar, Cachar District, Assam-788015.
2. Branch Manager, Life Corporation of India (LIC), CAB Office,
SangaiprouMamangLeikai, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
........RESPONDENT/S
B E F O R E
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr.Ph. Sanajaoba, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2022
Date of Order : 08.03.2022
ORDER
[1] The present writ petition had been filed assailing the transfer and posting of the petitioner from CAB-Imphal to Silchar, D.O. under the impugned order dated 17.11.2020 and official communication letters dated 24.12.2020 and 11.01.2021.
WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 1 Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appeared for the respondents.
[2] The counsel for the petitioner has raised two grounds in assailing the aforesaid impugned orders. The first ground is on the health condition of the petitioner and the personal difficulty raised by the petitioner in taking care of his old aged mother and younger brother, who is mentally unsound and requiring constant care by the petitioner. The second ground is that the petitioner has been subjected to transfer and posting in violation of the transfer and posting mobility policy issued by the respondents particularly the policies under Para 5 (d) and Para 12 (d) & (e) of the said transfer policy.
[3] It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner suffered a stroke in October, 2017 and on account of that, he took leave on medical grounds for 44 days. After the said unfortunate incident, the health condition of the petitioner especially blood pressure, sugar, eye sight, etc., have not been stable and therefore required medical supervision and that a doctor had advice the petitioner to refrain from undertaking heavy pressure works. It is also submitted that besides the said physical condition of the petitioner, the petitioner is required to take constant care of his old aged mother and younger brother, who is mentally unsound. In view of the physical conditions of the petitioner and personal problems being faced by the petitioner, the petitioner forfeited or declined promotion in the higher WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 2 post twice, one in 2012 and another in 2014 because such promotion entails compulsory posting outside the State of Manipur. [4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the physical condition of the petitioner and personal problems being faced by the petitioner, the petitioner submitted representations to the authorities requesting them to cancel his transfer and posting at Silchar and to allow him to continue his service in the State of Manipur. However, the authorities have declined to entertain the representation submitted by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to join at his new place of posting in a most arbitrary and mala fide manner.
[5] In connection with the second ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the normal period of posting as provided under Para 5 (d) of the transfer policy in the cadre of A.O. in the same position is for a period of 3 (three) years and in the same station for a period of 8 (eight) years after which an officers becomes due for redeployment/transfer.However, in the present case, the petitioner has been subjected to transfer and posting under the impugned order within a span of 2 (two) months, inasmuch as, the petitioner was posted at CAB, Imphal by an order dated 18.09.2020 and just barely after 2 (two) months, the impugned transfer order dated 17.11.2020 had been issued transferring the petitioner at Silchar, D.O. [6] The learned counsel further submitted that under Para 12 (d) & (e) of the aforesaid transfer policy, it is provided that posting of officers belonging WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 3 to S.C./S.T. community should be considered near their native place to the extent possible and that transfer of officers who themselves or members of their nuclear family (wife and the dependent children) are suffering from any of the diseases entitled for reimbursement of high cost treatment will be considered, as far as possible, to their desire place.
It is submitted by the learned for the petitioner that despite the existence of the aforesaid clear cut transfer policy, the petitioner had been subjected to transfer and posting under the impugned order by the authorities in a most arbitrary and mala fide manner by ignoring the various representations submitted by the petitioner in complete violation of their transfer policies. The learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned orders and impugned official communication letters are liable to be quashed and set aside.
[7] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it has been stated that before issuing the initial appointment order of the petitioner, a preliminary offer of appointment dated 10.03.2004 was issued wherein it is, inter alia, specifically mentioned at clause 3 and 6 as under:-
"3. This being an All India cadre, you are liable to be posted any where in India, as also transferred subsequently any where in India "
"6. Your appointment shall be governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, the rules formulated by the Central Government under Section 48 of LIC Act, 1956, and the administrative instructions as issued and amended from time to time. It is essential to observe and abide by all instructions and/or orders that may be issued either orally or in writing, from time to time. If you are agreeable to the above terms and conditions, you may handover the duplicate copy of this letter, to the WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 4 Principal, ZTC, Akurdi duly signed, in token of acceptance of the offer."
The petitioner accepted the conditions under the said preliminary offer of appointment and after giving his acceptance, the petitioner had been appointed as A.A.O in the corporation. [8] It has also been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that under regulation 20 of the L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as "Staff Regulation" for short), it is provided that unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of employment shall be at the disposal of the corporation and shall serve the corporation in its business in such capacity and at such place as he may, from time to time, be directed. It has also been stated that under Regulation 80 of the aforesaid Staff Regulation, it is provided that the competent authority may transfer an employee from one department to another in the same office or from one office of the cooperation to another office.
[9] In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has also been stated that the maximum tenure of posting as provided under Para 6 of the transfer and mobility policy for the cadre of A.O. is 3 (three) years in a position/assignment and 8 (eight) years in a particular station and officers in the cadre of A.O. will be redeployed after every 3 (three) years and that in the office exigencies, the competent authority will have the right to transfer any officer irrespective of tenure. It has also been stated that under Para 16 of the said transfer policy, it is provided that posting of officers on WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 5 refusal on promotion shall be done in accordance with normal period of posting criteria.
This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner being an employee of the corporation, he is subjected to the conditions contain in the preliminary offered appointment to which he had given his agreement before his appointment as well as the conditions of service for transfer and posting as contain in the aforesaid L.I.C. Staff Regulation, 1960 and the transfer and mobility policy of the corporation and there can be no exception.
[10] In connection with the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court carefully examined Para 12 (e) of the transfer policy as the same is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. On such examination, this Court is of the considered view that transfer of an officers will be considered, as far as possible, to their desire place if the officer himself or members of his nuclear family (wife and their dependent children) are suffering from any of the diseases entitled for reimbursement of high cost treatment. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the plea of the petitioner that he declined assignment and transfer year after year on medical ground has no basis as the concerned office of the corporation has no official record for medical treatment, hospitalisation or record of any serious disease or high cost treatment of the petitioner or his family members for the last 7 (seven) years and that the medical history of the petitioner at the concerned office WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 6 of the corporation shows no medi-claim records or settled by general insurance corporation /third party administrator. Such categorical statement have not been refuted specifically by the petitioner except for giving a general denial and enclosing certain prescription of his treatment in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. As the said documents have not been placed before the competent authorities for their consideration and as the Court is not an expert to examine such medical documents produced by the petitioner, this Court declines to interfere the impugned orders on the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner.
[11] In connection with the second ground raised by the petitioner, the respondents have highlighted the transfer and posting history of the petitioner in his whole service career in the corporation which are quoted hereinunder:-
"From the date of appointment he had/has been posted as under:
05-04-2004 to 09-03-2009 at Imphal BO as AAO 09-03-2009 to 06-08-2012 at Imphal CAB as AAO 06-08-2012 to 24-05-2016 at Bishenpur SO as AAO 24-05-2016 till date at Imphal CAB as AO."
[12] The petitioner did not refuted or deny his transfer and posting history as quoted hereinabove and accordingly on examination of the above quoted transfer and posting history of the petitioner, it can be clearly ascertained that the petitioner has been posted at Imphal, CAB as A.O. continuously for more than 4 (four) years w.e.f. 24.05.2016. As such, the allegation of violating the normal period of posting provided under Para 5 WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 7
(d) of the transfer policy by the authorities in issuing the impugned order is unfounded and baseless.
[13] So far as the contention of the petitioner for considering posting of officers belonging to S.C./S.T. community near their native place as provided under Para 12 (d) of the transfer policy is concerned, it is pointed out that through out his whole service career of more than 16 (sixteen) years in the corporation, the petitioner had been allowed to be posted in the State of Manipur and more particularly in the capital of the State, i.e., Imphal, which is home State. In view of the above, it cannot reasonably be said that the petitioner is an aggrieved person by the impugned transfer order, more particularly taking into consideration that the petitioner had never made any request to the authorities for his posting near his home town in terms of the Para 12 (d) of the transfer policy.
[14] It is trite to state here that transfer and posting of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the term of appointment but also implicit as essential condition of service and the employee has no indefeasibleright to stay permanently at the place of his choice. It is also well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferrable post from one place to another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 8 necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there is any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer, it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled, the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules and that the guidelines in respect of transfer does not conferred upon the employee a legally enforceable right. An order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievances sought to be made.
[15] In the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the foregoing reasons given hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order and the impugned official communicated letters. In the result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed, however, without any cost.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lhaineichong
WP(C) No. 27 of 2021 Page 9