Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs Dr. Karabi Kalita And Anr on 25 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010214232023
2025:GAU-AS:3386
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5797/2023
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND 4 ORS
REP BY THE CHAIRAMAN PANCHDEEP BHAWAN CIG MARG NEW DELHI
110002
2: DIRECTOR GENERAL
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN CIG
MARG NEW DELHI 110002
3: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
MEDICAL ADMINSITRATIOON EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN CIG MARG NEW DELHI 110002
4: GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE FOR TRANSFER OF MEDICAL
OFFICERS
REP BY THE CHAIRMAN EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
PANCHDEEP BHAWAN CIG MARG NEW DELHI 110002
5: MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL BELTOLA GUWAHATI 78102
VERSUS
DR. KARABI KALITA AND ANR
W/O DR. JAYANTA KUMAR CHOUDHURY CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER NFSG
ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL BELTOLA GUWAHATI 781002
2:UNION OF INDIA
REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND EMPLOYMENT NEW DELHI 11000
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BAISHYA, MR. P KALITA (P-5)
Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR, S RABHA (r-1),MS. R. ENGJAIPI (r-1),MR D
DAS,MR R CHAKRAVORTY,MR R SHARMA,DY.S.G.I. Page No.# 2/14 BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Date of Hearing : 19.03.2025 Date of Judgment : 25.03.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J) Heard Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel along with Mr. P. Kalita, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.
2. The petitioner, by way instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 03.08.2023, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench in Original Application (OA) No. 117/2023.
3. The facts in brief requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under: -
The petitioners herein, vide an order dated 27.06.2022, had required all Group-A Medical Officers working in the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC)Model Hospital and who had completed 03 or more years of continuous service at the Hospital to submit their choice of medical institutions/stations as option for posting. The said options were required to be so submitted by 28.06.2022. The respondent no. 1, who at the relevant point of time was working as a Chief Medical Officer [Non- functional Selection Grade (NFSG)] in pursuance to the said communication dated 27.06.2022, submitted her option for transfer and posting in the following manner: -
1. ESICH, Beltola.
2. DCBO, Nagaon.
Page No.# 3/14
3. DCBO, Mangaldoi.
4. DCBO, Guwahati.
5. DCBO, Barpeta.
The petitioners herein, on consideration of the options submitted by the respondent no. 1 and also keeping in view the necessity for posting officers at various places, proceeded to issue an order of transfer dated 27.12.2022, thereby transferring and posting about 69 doctors to various places. The name of the respondent no. 1 figures at Serial No. 67 of the said order dated 27.12.2022 and she was posted on transfer from ESICH, Beltola, Assam to DCBO, Darjeeling, West Bengal.
The respondent no. 1 being aggrieved by the said order of transfer, submitted a representation and therein, highlighted that her younger daughter was slated to appear in the Class-XII final exams, scheduled in the month of February-March, 2023 and her elder daughter was preparing for All India Entrance Examinations and in absence of their father, who was posted far away from Guwahati, she being the caretaker, requested for being continued at her present place of posting i.e., at ESICH, Beltola. The said representation of the respondent no. 1 found favour with the petitioners and she was exempted from the transfer as effected vide order dated 27.12.2022 till completion of the academic session of her daughter. On completion of the exams of the daughter of the respondent no. 1, vide order dated 28.04.2023, she was released from the ESICH, Beltola and she was directed to join against her transfer place of posting i.e., at DCBO, Darjeeling, West Bengal.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench by way of instituting an Original Application being OA No. 117/2023. The learned Tribunal, upon hearing the parties to the proceeding was pleased to dispose of the said OA vide order dated 03.08.2023. The operative portion of the said order dated 03.08.2023 is extracted herein below: -
"5. We have heard the parties and perused the records. It is noted that admittedly other options are there in the ERP system but as per the respondents, they are not Page No.# 4/14 operational which came to the knowledge of this Court for the first time when query was made to the learned counsel for the respondents today whereas, there is no such communication on the part of the department that other options except Kamrup Metro, Kamrup Rural and Mangaldoi are not in operation. Therefore, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant afresh by treating this O.A. as a part of it and accommodate her at any place within the State of Assam as per their policy and communicate the decision so arrived within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. In the interim, respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant till the communication of their decision to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant O.A. is disposed of with the above observations and directions with no order as to costs."
Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2023, passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 117/2023; the petitioners have instituted the present proceeding.
4. Assailing the order dated 03.08.2023, Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent no. 1 was initially recruited as an Insurance Medical Officer under the Government of Assam in the year 1995 and was thereafter, sent of deputation to the ESIC Model Hospital, Beltola. The respondent no. 1 was subsequently absorbed in services of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on regular basis w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as an Insurance Medical Officer (Grade-II) and was posted at ESICH, Beltola. The respondent no. 1 was thereafter, promoted to the post CMO in the year 2011 and to the post of CMO (NFSG) w.e.f., 2015. It is submitted by Ms. Bhattacharyya that on a promotion to the CMO (NFSG) w.e.f., 02.01.2015, she was brought under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme and was deemed to be inducted into the All-India Cadre w.e.f., 01.06.2018. Ms. Bhattacharyya has submitted that the respondent no. 1 having continued to serve at the ESICH, Beltola w.e.f., the date of her induction i.e. from 01.01.2006, she had completed more than 16 years at the said hospital. Accordingly, the constituted committee, on considering the cases of various Medical Officers who had completed their respective tenures, proceeded to recommend the transfer of the respondent no. 1 to DCBO, Darjeeling, West Bengal. Accordingly, the competent Page No.# 5/14 authority having accepted the said recommendation, the order of transfer dated 27.12.2022, came to be issued, transferring the respondent no. 1 from ESICH, Beltola to DCBO, Darjeeling. Ms. Bhattacharyya submits that the authorities basing on a request made by the respondent no. 1 in view of her younger daughter appearing in her Class-XII examinations, had deferred the transfer of the respondent no. 1 till completion of the examination of her younger daughter. Accordingly, on completion of the exams, the respondent no. 1 was released from ESICH, Beltola vide order dated 28.04.2023, requiring her to join at her transferred place of posting.
5. Ms. Bhattacharyya has submitted that although the respondent no. 1 has submitted options, however, the tenure of service rendered by the petitioner at ESICH, Beltola would not mandate consideration of the options as submitted by the applicant herein, inasmuch as, the options were mandated from doctors in terms of the transfer policy in place who had completed 06 years of service but, have not completed 09 years of continuous service at a particular station. Ms. Bhattacharyya has reiterated that the impugned order of transfer in respect of the respondent no. 1 was so issued after considering the administrative exigency existing in the matter by the authorities and the necessity of a person with the qualification and experience as possessed by the respondent no. 1 to man the post at DCBO, Darjeeling.
6. Ms. Bhattacharyya, by referring to the consideration made in respect of the respondent no. 1 by the constituted committee, has submitted that the committee while considering the case of the respondent no. 1 had reckoned that she was posted since 01.01.2006 i.e., for around 195 months at ESICH, Beltola and accordingly, her services being necessitated at DCBO, Darjeeling, the recommendation came to be made for transfer and posting of the respondent no. 1 to DCBO, Darjeeling. Ms. Bhattacharyya has further submitted that although the respondent no. 1 had contended that she on being posted to DCBO, Darjeeling, was deprived of posting against a clinical post, the same would not mandate acceptance, inasmuch as, a perusal of the options given by the respondent no. 1 would go to reveal that amongst Page No.# 6/14 the options so submitted, there were also options so given for posting at Dispensary cum Branch Offices (DCBOs). Ms. Bhattacharyya has further submitted that the policy in place mandates that all Medical Officers of ESIC are liable to be transferred to any location where vacancies are created and/or are available.
7. Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent no. 1 would not also be entitled to be continued against a post in the State of Assam in terms of the policy relating to spouse posting, inasmuch as, the same would not be applicable in respect of the applicant herein, who is an All-India Cadre Officer, and had remained continuously posted at ESICH, Beltola for a period of around 16 years w.e.f., the date of her initial induction to the service of the ESIC w.e.f., 01.01.2006, till 2022.
8. Ms. Bhattacharyya has further submitted that the learned Tribunal vide the order dated 03.08.2023, had not considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners before it and without recording any finding, had abruptly issued the direction to reconsider the case of the applicant and accommodate her at any place within the State of Assam as per the policy and communicate the decision so arrived at to the applicant. The Tribunal had further restrained the petitioners herein, from taking any coercive action against the respondent no. 1 till communication of their decision to her after the reconsideration of her case of transfer. Ms. Bhattacharyya has submitted that the said direction as passed by the learned Tribunal being bereft of any reasoning, would call an interference by this Court.
9. Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel, has further submitted that violation of the transfer policy in place would not afford a ground to the respondent no. 1 to assail the transfer order, which admittedly, was on account of administrative exigency. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 1 has not brought on record any material to demonstrate any malafide existing on the part of the petitioners herein, in issuing the impugned order of transfer dated 27.12.2022 and accordingly, she submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in accepting the prayer of the Page No.# 7/14 respondent no. 1 herein, and directing the petitioners herein, to reconsider the case of the respondent no. 1 by limiting such reconsideration to be made for a posting within the State of Assam by ignoring the fact that the respondent no. 1 had completed more than 16 years of posting as of 2022 at ESIC, Beltola and that she was an All-India Cadre officer.
10. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, by referring to the transfer policy as circulated vide a communication dated 20.06.2022, more particularly, Clause-8 thereof, has submitted that all clinical postings of doctors shall be normally for a period of 06 years, provided, there is no serious complaint of misconduct against the doctor or it is expedient in public interest of transferring him/her before completion of the minimum tenure prescribed. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that it is permissible for the petitioners to extend such tenure of posting at a particular place of a doctor by assigning reasons for a further period of 03 years. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the respondent no. 1 having been inducted in the All-India Cadre in the year 2018, she had not completed as of 2022, the minimum mandated tenure of 06 years at ESICH, Beltola and such tenure being also permissible to be extended for a further period of 03 years, the petitioners herein, could not have issued the impugned order of transfer dated 27.12.2022, transferring the respondent no. 1 to DCBO, Darjeeling.
11. Mr. Choudhury has also highlighted that there was no complaint of misconduct against the respondent no. 1 during her posting at ESICH, Beltola. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that although the respondent no. 1 had continued at ESICH, Beltola w.e.f., 01.01.2006, the same would not be reckonable and what would now be reckonable for the purpose of transfer, on application of the provisions of Clause-8 of the transfer policy, is the tenure of service rendered by the respondent no. 1, on promotion, to the post of CMO (NFSG) after her induction w.e.f., 01.06.2018 to the All-India Cadre. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners had erred in reckoning the tenure of service of the respondent no. 1 w.e.f., 01.01.2006 at ESICH, Beltola for the purpose of Page No.# 8/14 consideration of her case for transfer. Mr. Choudhury, has further submitted that the petitioners having laid down the transfer policy, it is not open for them to ignore the same, while transferring and posting a doctor working in the organization.
12. Mr. Choudhury learned counsel has further submitted that the transfer policy mandates that the approved leave enjoyed by a doctor would be required to be excluded while considering the tenure of posting of a doctor at a particular station for the purpose of his/her transfer and posting. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that approved leave as availed by the respondent no. 1 was also not excluded while considering her tenure. Mr. Choudhury submits that in terms of the policy in place w.e.f., 01.06.2018, the respondent no. 1 would be entitled to continue at ESICH, Beltola till the month of February, 2029. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order of transfer was rightly interfered by the learned CAT.
13. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the order dated 03.08.2023, passed by the learned Tribunal has submitted that the learned Tribunal had not restrained the petitioners herein, from transferring and posting the applicant and the only direction issued by the learned Tribunal was to the effect that a reconsideration be made in terms of the transfer policy holding the field and for posting the respondent no. 1 at any station within the State of Assam. Mr. Choudhury, submits that the respondent no. 1 being the caregiver of her two children in the absence of her husband, who is posted at Nalbari Medical College, the authorities ought to have factored in the said position before passing the impugned order of transfer dated 27.12.2022. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the present writ petition filed, assailing the order dated 03.08.2023 is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the consideration as directed by the learned Tribunal is a consideration supported by the transfer policy in place.
14. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
Page No.# 9/14
15. Before proceeding to consider the issues arising in the present proceeding, it would be required to take notice of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relevant to the issue arising in the present proceeding.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of U.P. Vs Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2002) 11 SCC 402, had drawn the following conclusions: -
7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place In public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.
8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors, Vs State of U.P., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 had drawn the following conclusions: -
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be Page No.# 10/14 transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also Implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, SCC p. 406, para 7).
9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India this Court reiterated that: (SCC p. 103, para 6) "6.... the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific provision...."
18. The principles drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its above noted decisions as well as other decisions is that transfer is an exigency of service and an employee cannot have a choice of place of posting. It is also laid down that administrative circulars and guidelines are only indicators of the manner in which the transfer policy has to be implemented. However, an administrative circular, in itself, may not confer a vested right which can be enforceable by a writ of mandamus. It is also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless an order of transfer is established to be malafide or contrary to a statutory provision or to have been issued by an authority not competent to order transfer, the Court, in exercise of judicial review would not be inclined to interfere with such order of transfer.Having noticed the position of law with Page No.# 11/14 regard to the challenge of an order of transfer by alleging violation of the transfer policy in place, the issues arising in the present proceeding is being examined.
19. The respondent no. 1 herein, was transferred and posted to DCBO, Darjeeling, West Bengal, vide the order dated 27.12.2022. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein, had been continuously serving as a Doctor in ESICH, Beltola, w.e.f., 01.01.2006 till the issuance of the order dated 27.12.2022, transferring her to DCBO, Darjeeling. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 1 is that the petitioners could not have reckoned the tenure of the respondent no. 1 w.e.f., 01.01.2006 in ESICH, Beltola for the purpose of considering her case for transfer and it is only the tenure of service so rendered by the applicant, on promotion, to the cadre of CMO (NFSG) w.e.f., 02.01.2015 and more particularly, the tenure after her deemed induction to the All-India Cadre w.e.f., 01.06.2018, that would be reckonable for the purpose of consideration of her case of transfer. Further, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that in terms of the provisions of Clause-8 of the transfer policy dated 20.06.2022, an incumbent doctor would be liable to be transferred only after completion of 06 years of service at a particular station and such service was also permissible to be extended by the competent authority on assigning specific reasons for the further period of 03 years. The respondent no. 1 having not completed the tenure of 06 years w.e.f., 01.06.2018, it was projected that the respondent no. 1 was not entitled to be transferred out of ESICH, Beltola in the year 2022.
20. On a perusal of the transfer policy, more particularly, Clause-8 thereof, it is clear that the same does not support the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 1. The provisions of Clause-8(1) of the transfer policy dated 20.06.2022 only mandates that all clinical posting of doctors shall normally be for a period of 06 years. While providing the said stipulation, it has not further provided that such clinical posting is to be reckoned cadre wise. The provisions of Clause-8 also does not provide that in the event a doctor had continued against a particular post Page No.# 12/14 and thereafter, was promoted to the next higher cadre in the same place of posting, his tenure for the purpose of his transfer would now be required to be considered w.e.f., the date of joining against the promotional post. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 herein, having been posted against a clinical post at ESICH, Beltola, w.e.f., 01.01.2006; the entire service rendered by the respondent no. 1 w.e.f., 01.01.2006 would, in our considered view, be reckonable for the purpose of considering her case for transfer. Although, the respondent no. 1 was brought into the All-India Cadre w.e.f., 01.06.2018, the same would be of no consequence while considering the tenure of the respondent no. 1 at ESICH, Beltola and such consideration mandatorily would be required to be so made by reckoning her continuous services so rendered in the ESICH, Beltola w.e.f., 01.01.2006.
21. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 1 had also submitted that the options for posting as given by the respondent no. 1 in terms of the provisions transfer policy dated 20.06.2022, were required to be so considered by the petitioners before posting of the respondent no. 1. The said contention is being considered only to be rejected inasmuch as, provisions of Clause-13.1 of the transfer policy mandates that after completion of maximum tenure at an institution, the doctor concerned, shall give option of choice of institution/station for posting. The respondent no. 1 having completed her maximum tenure of posting at ESICH, Beltola; and having also completed the period of further 03 years as mandated under Clause 8.1 of the transfer policy, in total more than 09 years, the respondent no. 1 cannot be held to be entitled to submit an option of choice place of posting for the purpose of transfer, inasmuch as, the respondent no. 1 had continued at ESICH, Beltola, for more than 16 years till 2022. Further, on account of mere violation of the provisions of a transfer policy, a right cannot be held to have accrued upon an employee to assail an order of transfer.
22. Another aspect of the matter, which is required to be noticed in the present proceeding is that while the respondent no. 1 before the learned Tribunal had alleged violation of the provisions of the transfer policy and also non-consideration of the Page No.# 13/14 choice place of posting as given by her, she had not alleged malafide against any of the authorities of the ESIC. Further, it was not pleaded by the respondent no. 1 before the learned Tribunal that the impugned order of transfer was issued by an authority not competent to issue such order of transfer. The further contentions of the petitioners herein, that the respondent no. 1 was an All-India Cadre Officer has also not been disputed by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly, the impugned order of transfer having been issued basing on an administrative exigency arising in the matter, mere violation of the transfer guidelines dated 20.06.2022 would not confer a vested right upon the respondent no. 1 to assail the same moreso, in absence of any malafide being alleged in the matter.
23. Having drawn the above conclusions, the order dated 03.08.2023; passed by the learned Tribunal is now being examined.
24. A perusal of the order dated 03.08.2023 would go to reveal that the learned Tribunal after recording the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, without recording any reasons had proceeded to direct the petitioners herein, to consider the case of the applicant afresh and accommodate her at any place within the State of Assam as per their policy and communicate the decision to her. Further, the petitioners were restrained from taking any coercive action against the respondent no. 1, till the exercise involved was completed. The directions as passed by the learned Tribunal vide the order dated 03.08.2023 being devoid of any reasoning, the same would not be sustainable and would call for an interference by this Court.
25. In view of the above discussions, the order of transfer dated 27.12.2022, not having been demonstrated by the respondent no. 1 herein, to have been issued de hors any statutory provision and/or to be actuated by malafides, the challenge thereto would not be sustainable and accordingly, the order dated 27.12.2022, insofar as, it concerns the respondent no. 1 herein, is required to be upheld. Accordingly, the order dated 03.08.2023, passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 117/2023 cannot be Page No.# 14/14 sustained and the same is set aside and consequently, the original application filed by the respondent no. 1 herein, stands dismissed.
26. The respondent no. 1 having continued to remain posted in ESICH, Beltola, in terms of the interim directions passed by this Court in the present proceedings vide order dated 17.10.2023, it is directed that the respondent no. 1 shall stand released from the ESICH, Beltola on 31.03.2025 and she shall forthwith thereafter, proceed to join against her transfer place of posting i.e., at DCBO Darjeeling after availing the permissible joining time.
27. The respondent no. 1 shall be released her pay and allowances till 31.03.2025 by reckoning her to have continued to be posted at ESICH, Beltola and thereafter, the pay and allowances of the respondent no. 1 shall be so paid after her joining at DCBO Darjeeling by the competent authority thereof.
28. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant