Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Rabidas vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 10 February, 2012
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4529 of 2006
Dilip Kumar Rabidas ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Health,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Civil Surgeon, Godda ... Respondents
--------
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumra Sah, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G.
------
05/10.02.2012: Petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order of transfer issued by the respondents dated 8.7.2006, which was issued after the instruction received from the Under Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to the Civil Surgeon, Godda.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring Annexure-9 to the petition i.e. a letter issued by the Under Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to the Civil Surgeon, Godda dated 8.7.2006, submitted that one Smt. Champa Devi working with the Primary Health Centre, Meharama, Godda gave an application making grievance against the present petitioner and on the basis of the said application, Civil Surgeon was asked to transfer the present petitioner. On account of this instruction, issued by the Government vide Annexure-11 i.e. transfer order dated 8.8.2006, the petitioner was transferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order issued by the respondents is nothing but victimization of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that other similarly situated employees are also working under the respondents for the last so many years and they have not been transferred and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner's transfer was made on account of administrative exigencies. It is also submitted that after considering the facts and circumstances of the present petition, ad interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner by staying the order of transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that transfer order may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner's transfer order came to be issued on account of administrative exigencies; there is no malafide in the transfer of the petitioner. It is further pointed out that this petition was filed in the year 2006 challenging the order of transfer and the said transfer order has been stayed by this Court and therefore, the petitioner continued on the said post despite issuance of transfer order for a period of more than five years by now. It is submitted that transfer is incidental in the service and usually takes place after the interval of 3 to 4 years upon the administrative exigencies arises in the department. However, if the petitioner will be asked to make representation, respondent-authorities will consider the same objectively.
Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the paper-sheet, it transpires that petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 8.8.2006 i.e. Annexure-11. It appears that the said order dated 8.8.2006 came to be issued on the basis of instruction issued by the Under Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to the Civil Surgeon, Godda, upon application received from one Smt. Champa Devi working with the Primary Health Centre, Meharama, Godda making grievance against the present petitioner. It appears that after preliminary hearing of this petition at the admission stage, this Court deemed it proper to stay the transfer order and by virtue of that stay order, petitioner remained continue on the said post till date.
I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim, as a matter of right, that he should be allowed to work on a particular post or on a particular place. However, at the same point of time, respondent-authorities cannot act arbitrarily or malafide in respect of transfer and transfer is required to be made on the basis of real administrative exigencies or at the regular interval without any discrimination or pick and choose policy in accordance with the transfer policy framed by the State. No other extraneous consideration should waive in the mind of respondent-authorities for the purpose of determining the transfer.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and proper to ask the petitioner to make representation to the concerned respondent-authority within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon making such representation by the petitioner, respondent no.4 shall decide the same taking into account the real administrative exigency, without any other extraneous consideration, objectively and sympathetically within one month thereafter. If some third person has made grievance against the petitioner, the veracity of such grievance has to be examined. Merely with a view to please some one or at the instance of some body transfer should not be made, unless real, genuine administrative exigency is there. It is expected that the representation that may be made by the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent No.3 objectively and sympathetically within one month thereafter.
It is further clarified that ad interim relief granted earlier shall remain in force till the outcome of the representation made by the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) S.B.