Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Narayan Chandra Sil vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 21 December, 2016
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
06 21.12.2016
rpan Ct. No.01
WPST No. 167 of 2016
Narayan Chandra Sil
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Others
Mr. Krishnendu Bera
... for the Petitioner
Mrs. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Ms. Sukla Das Chanda
... for the State/Respondents
The petition is directed against the decision of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dated 18th August, 2016 in O.A. 318 of 2015.
The Petitioner was issued an order of transfer on 10th March, 2015 transferring him to Rudranagar Rural Hospital and with a further direction to release him immediately. Accordingly, the release order was also issued on 17th March, 2015.
The Petitioner contends that this transfer order has been issued because of punitive action sought to be taken against him and, therefore, it should be stayed. He further contends that the release order was pasted at his residence and attempted to be served on him when he was undergoing a surgery. The other contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that Rudranagar Rural Hospital is 70 kilometres away from his residence and in view of the guidelines issued by the Government on 28th February, 2002, he is not liable to be transferred to such a far off place. Reliance is placed on the guidelines for Group - 'D' employees II(iii) which stipulates that transfers of Group - 'D' employees and their postings should be restricted within 20 kilometres radius from his/her place of residence.
There is no dispute that the Petitioner's permanent place of abode is closer to Rudranagar Rural Hospital than his residence at Diamond Harbour. Moreover, he is 2 staying at the staff quarters in Diamond Harbour. According to the Respondents/State once the Petitioner joins at Rudranagar Rural Hospital he would be provided staff quarters and, therefore, the question of travelling 70 kilometres per day would not arise. The guidelines, which have been issued by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, are as the nomenclature suggests only a guideline. An occasion may arise when these guidelines have to be given a go-by because the situation demands it. Therefore, in our view, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
We have been informed that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioner for certain acts of misconduct which obviously the Petitioner will be entitled to defend.
The petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities as expeditiously as possible.
(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)