THOUNAOJAM JAMINI DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-5-26
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on May 07,2019

Thounaojam Jamini Devi Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer and posting order dated 8.3.2019 by which the petitioner who was serving as in-charge CDPO, ICDS Project, Lamsang I/W-I has been transferred and posted as in-charge CDPO, ICDS Project Singhat.
(2.) Heard Mr.A.Mohendro, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.S.Nepolean, learned GA for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
(3.) Mr.A.Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a regular employee holding the substantive post of Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Manipur and the petitioner is to retire on superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2020. During the past service tenure, the petitioner had served for fourteen years in the hill areas/districts. He submits that the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) has issued an Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017 laying down the policy for transfer and posting of Government servants. Therein, at clause 2(i) it provides that normal tenure of posting of an officer/employee in a post will be a minimum of two years and maximum of five years in a place of posting. At clause 2(ii) it is further provided that no transfer may be affected unless the concerned employee has completed three years in a post, unless there are compelling reasons/circumstances to do so. Clause 2(viii) further stipulates that officials may be posted in a district of their choice two years before their retirement. He submits that this has been circulated to all the departments to ensure compliance of the instructions. It is submitted that the transfer order dated 8.3.2019 has been issued in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017 inasmuch as the petitioner will retire from service in not less than nine months i.e. on 28.2.2020. The second ground of attack to the order dated 8.3.2019 is that the order has not been issued in public interest and the same is amply made clear by the order dated 8.3.2019 inasmuch as the word "public interest"? has not been mentioned. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 has been issued to accommodate the respondent No.4 at Lamsang. Further submission has been forwarded that the order dated 8.3.2019 transferring the petitioner out of Lamsang to Singhat has been issued on political interference in favour of the respondent No.4. He, therefore, submits that the action of respondent No.4 by bringing in political interference attracts clause 2(xvii) of the Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017 which provides that any Government servant who brings or attempts to bring any political or other external influence to bear upon any authority to further his/her interest in respect of matters pertaining to service under the Government, including transfers, shall be liable to be severely dealt with and action may be taken against him/her for violation of Rule 20 of the Civil Services Conduct Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017 has been issued for strict compliance by all the departments in the matters of transfer and posting of Government servants and that the Office Memorandum is not only instructions but has statutory force which all the departments are to strictly comply. To support his case, he placed reliance in the case of Lalaram and Ors Vs Jaipur Development Authority and Anr reported in 2016 (1) Supreme 337. It is the further case of learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order dated 8.3.2019 has been issued malafide with the intention of transferring the petitioner, not only to hill district but also to a remote area of the State. He has also placed reliance in the cases of Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary Anr Vs M.B.Kishore reported in (2005) 11 SCC 541 and Food Corporation of India and Anr Vs Seil Ltd and Ors reported in (2008) 3 SCC 440. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.