Manipur High Court
Angman Paris Maring vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 7 March, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
IN. 3
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.03.07 14:40:09
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 190 of 2025
Angman Paris Maring ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
07-03-2025
Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Deepak Prasad Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Issue notice, returnable within four weeks.
Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA entered appearance and accepts
notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, hence no formal notice is
called for in respect of the said respondents.
Petitioner is to take steps for service of notice upon respondent
No. 3 by way of dasti service.
Steps should be taken within one week and the petitioner is to
file an affidavit showing proof of service of such notice.
It is the case of the petitioner that during a span of one year
and eight months, he has been transferred five times and that such
transfer is in complete violation of the transfer policy framed by the State
Government wherein it is, inter alia, laid down that a Government servant
should be posted for a minimum of one year and six months and a
maximum of three years but in the present case, the petitioner has been
subjected to frequent transfer, as many as five times, during a span of
WP(C) No. 190 of 2025 Contd…/-
-2-
one year and eight months. This is clearly supported by the documents
at Annexure – A/13 (Colly.) and the averments made by the petitioner at
para 9 of the writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said
impugned transfer order has been issued in colourable exercise of the
power and to accommodate the private respondent No. 3 to the post
presently held by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner is a regular
A.E. allowing to hold the post of E.E. on in-charge basis while the private
respondent is not even a regular A.E. and he has been posted as
in-charge E.E. by replacing the petitioner. The learned senior counsel,
accordingly, prays for passing an interim order suspending the transfer
order in respect of the petitioner and the private respondent.
This prayer is vehemently objected to by Mr. Th. Vashum,
learned GA by relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of “S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India” reported in
(2006) 9 SCC 583 wherein it has been held as under:-
“6. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel
and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case
for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first
place, a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by
not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to
ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where
he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his
personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of
posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Apart
therefrom, if the appellant really had some genuine difficulty in
reporting for work at Tezpur, he could have reported for duty at
Amritsar where he was so posted. We too decline to believe the
story of his remaining sick. Assuming there was some sickness,
we are not satisfied that it prevented him from joining duty either
at Tezpur or at Amritsar. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital proves this point. In the circumstances,
we too are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of the
misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty.”
Relying on the said judgment, the learned GA submitted that
the petitioner has neither reported or joined the new place of posting nor
WP(C) No. 190 of 2025 Contd…/-
-3-
has he submitted a representation against the transfer order but he has
straightaway approach the court by filing the present writ petition
assailing the transfer order, which is in complete violation of the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above quoted judgment. The
learned GA submitted that on this count alone, the petitioner is not at all
entitled to any interim relief. Opposing the prayer for interim order, the
learned GA further submitted that a Government employee has no
vested right to choose or remain posted at the place of his choice nor
can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. In support
of his contention, the learned GA, relied on the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Rajendra Singh & ors Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & ors.” reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 wherein it has
been held as under:-
“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 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).”
I have heard at length the rival submission advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties in the present case. On perusal
of the impugned transfer order, it is nowhere indicated that the petitioner
should report to his new place of posting and there is no document
releasing the petitioner from his present place of posting to join his new
place of posting. In such a situation, this court cannot find any fault on
the part of the petitioner for not joining his new place of posting. It is also
the case of the petitioner that during a short span of one year and eight
months, he had been subjected to as many as five transfer and posting
WP(C) No. 190 of 2025 Contd…/-
-4-
and according to the petitioner, it is a frequent transfer to harass him and
that he has suffered a lot due to such unreasonable act of the
Government. The further case of the petitioner is that in order to
accommodate the private respondent No. 3, who is not even a regular
A.E., and to enable the private respondent No. 3 to hold the higher post
of E.E. on in-charge basis, the authorities have issued the impugned
transfer order in colourable exercise of power.
The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of S.C. Saxena (supra) had been rendered not in connection with a
transfer and posting order but in the matter where the Government
officer challenged the result of the Departmental Enquiry. On perusal of
the said judgment, this court is of the considered view that the facts and
circumstances of the said case and the facts and circumstances of the
present case are totally different and the said judgment is clearly
distinguishable on facts and accordingly, this court is not inclined to
accept the submission advanced by the learned GA.
So far as the case law cited by the learned GA in the case of
Rajendra Singh & ors. (supra), this court is of the considered view that
the ratio laid down therein is not applicable in the present case,
inasmuch as, the petitioner never claim that he want to remain in his
place of posting, but it is a case of the authorities violating their own
transfer policy and victimising the petitioner. In such view of the matter,
this court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) is not applicable.
Taking into consideration the submission advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record,
this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to
WP(C) No. 190 of 2025 Contd…/-
-5-
make out a prima facie case for passing an interim order. Accordingly, it
is hereby directed that the impugned transfer order dated 03-03-2025
issued by the Joint Secretary (PHE), Government of Manipur, shall
remain suspended in so far as the petitioner and the private respondent
No. 3 is concerned until further order.
As prayed for, list this case again on 21-04-2025. It is made
clear that as the stay order has been passed in the absence of the private
respondent No. 3, liberty is given to the respondent No. 3 to approach
this court for modification or vacation of the interim order, if so advised.
JUDGE
Devananda
WP(C) No. 190 of 2025 Contd.../-
IN. 4
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.03.07 14:40:42
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WP(C)) 186 of 2025
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 190 of 2025)
Angman Paris Maring ... Applicant
Vs.
State of Manipur & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
07-03-2025
In view of the order passed today in the main writ petition,
the present application stands closed.
JUDGE
Devananda
WP(C) No. 190 of 2025 Contd.../-
[ad_1]
Source link