DEVAPRIYA CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions having similar issues are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In WP(C) No. 319 of 2018, the petitioner is presently holding the post of Senior Manager (Civil). Vide Order No. 100 dated 26th June, 2018, the petitioner was sought to be transferred to Assam Gas Based Power Station, Bokulani, Dibrugarh District, Assam. The petitioner herein also has submitted a representation for review as he has an old and ailing mother who requires medical attention and also that the transfer was sought in the middle of the academic session of his son. The petitioner had earlier approached the Civil Court but had withdrawn the same, and is now before this court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S.C. Chakrawarty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. E. Slong, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main contention in these two writ petitions is whether the violation of the Transfer Policy by the respondent Corporation, would vitiate the transfer orders, and they be subject to interference by this Court. He submits that the law with regard to transfer of employees, is well settled as has been consistently held in a number of decisions by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court as well various High Courts, that transfer of an employee can only be interfered with if they are made in violation of statutory provisions and or found to be otherwise malicious. He further submits that Rule 11.3 of the Transfer Policy of the NEEPCO, categorically provides that if an employee or his family member is suffering from any special disease as defined in NEEPCO Medical Attendance Rules, then such employee shall be deployed at any location of their choice or nearest to a location where facilities for treatment of special disease are available. In the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 258 of 2018, it has been clearly made out that his father is an aged person suffering from such special disease namely diabetes mellitus, which requires proper medical attendance which is available in Shillong but not available in the new place of posting i.e. Bokulani, Dibrugarh District, Assam where proper medical attendance is available only 50 Km away. He submits that in the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 319 of 2018, his mother is a heart patient who requires constant medical attendance and the same is not available in the new place of posting. Further, he submits that Rule 11.8, provides that if a child of an employee is a student of Class IX and Class XI, such employee shall not be transferred till completion of Class X and Class XII. The learned senior counsel submits that it is the pleaded and un-contradicted case of the petitioners that their children are students of Class IX and Class XI in the year 2018, as such the transfer order is in gross violation of Rule 11.8 of the said Rule. He also contends that Rule 10.2 of the said Transfer Policy provides that an employee shall be generally transferred during the months of February, March and April but in the instant case in gross violation thereto the petitioners were transferred in the month of June, 2018.