Gauhati High Court
Pradip Kalita vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 24 January, 2020
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010038032018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1145/2018
1:PRADIP KALITA
S/O- SHRI AGHONA RAM KALITA, MULTI PURPOSE WORKER (MALE)
HATIAKHOWA SUB-CENTRE UNDER CHARINGIA BLOCK PHC UNDER
JOINT DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, GOLAGHAT, P.O. GOLAGHAT, P.S.
GOLAGHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785621
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DISPUR, P.O. ASSAM
SACHIVALAYA, PIN-781006, ASSAM
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
PIN-781036
3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
GOVT. OF ASSAM
GOLAGHAT
PIN-785621
4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
GOVT. OF ASSAM
NALBARI
PIN-781335
5:BARINDRA HALOI
MULTI PURPOSE WORKER (MALE) BALI SUB-CENTRE UNDER TIHU
BLOCK PHC C/O- JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
Page No.# 2/3
GOVT. OF ASSAM
NALBARI
PIN-78133
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH AND F W
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
24.01.2020 Heard Ms. A. Theyo, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Shri A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department.
2. Considering the fact that the subject matter in dispute has already been adjudicated by this Court in a bunch of writ petition, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner who is a Multi Purpose Worker (MPW) (Male) Group-C in the Health and Family Welfare Department has put to challenge an order dated 12.01.2010 hereby the petitioner was transferred from the Bali Sub-Centre under Tihu Block PHC, Nalbari to Hatiakhowa Sub-Centre under Charingia Block PHC, Golaghat district.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the posts of MPW are non-transferable and in absence of power to make such transfer, the impugned absence is void ab initio.
5. On the other hand, Shri B. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner being a Government servant, it is the prerogative of the Government to make transfer as transfer is an incidence of service. In this regard, Shri Gogoi has placed before this Court an order dated 01.08.2019 passed in a bunch of writ petition including WP(C) No. Page No.# 3/3 2245/2019 in which a similar issue was the subject matter of adjudication.
6. In the said case, transfers of MPWs were put to challenge on a similar ground and this Court had held as follows:-
"Being State Government employees, petitioners cannot raise a plea that the State Government cannot transfer them or that they cannot be subjected to inter-district transfer. Such a plea would be untenable in law and would put unnecessary fetters on the administrative discretion of the State Government. Of course, in an individual case, it will always be open to the employee to assail the legality and correctness of an order of transfer subject, of course, to the very limited scope of judicial review, but there cannot be a general proposition of law that an incumbent holding the post of MPW (M) cannot be transferred from one sub-centre of a district to another sub-centre of another district. That apart, on going through the impugned office memorandum dated 02.01.2019 and the consequential orders of transfer, as well as the pre 02.01.2019 orders of transfer, no element of arbitrariness is discernible. Neither can the transfer orders be said to be in violation of any statutory provision. There is also no allegation of malafide.
In the light of the above, Court is of the view that challenge made by the petitioners is devoid of merit and is required to be rejected. Accordingly, all the writ petitions, barring WP(C) No.2245/2019 are dismissed. WP(C) No.2245/2019 would stand allowed in terms of above discussions."
7. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that though a writ appeal has been preferred against the said judgment, no interim order has been passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
8. The issue in dispute in the present case is not distinguishable from the issues involved in the aforesaid bunch of writ petition. This Court has further noticed that since the challenge was made after the petitioner had joined the new place of posting, vide the order dated 22.08.2018, interim order was declined to be passed for the said reason.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.
10. Writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant