PRABHAT CHANDRA BARUAH Vs. SRIMATI UJJALA KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant No.1 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur, in Money Appeal No.1/2001, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Tezpur, in Money Suit No.20/1998. By the said judgment and decree the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for damages has been decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent instituted Money Suit No.20/1998 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Tezpur, against the present appellant and the State of Assam as defendants, praying for a decree for Rs.15,000.00 as compensation for pain and mental agony and Rs.10,000.00 towards the litigation expenses, contending inter alia that despite the notification of the Government dated 19.01.1996 withdrawing temporarily the powers of appointment and transfer of teachers of L.P. Schools from all the Deputy Inspector of Schools, w.e.f. 01.02.1996, the appellant/defendant No.1 has passed an order of transfer dated 14.10.1996 transferring the plaintiff/respondent from No.61 Saikia Chuburi L.P. School, Dekargaon, Tezpur to Teleria L.P. School, Teleria and though the Deputy Commissioner subsequently on the representation filed by the plaintiff/respondent directed the appellant/defendant No.1 not to give effect to the said transfer order, the same having not been followed, the plaintiff/respondent had to approach the High Court in Civil Rule No.5966/1996 challenging the order of transfer. It has further been contended that despite passing of the interim order by the High Court in the said Civil Rule, the appellant/defendant No.1 did not comply with such interim order and ultimately on being directed to appear in person when the appellant/defendant No.1 appeared before the High Court, an order was passed by the High Court and consequently the appellant could resume her duties in the earlier place of posting. According to the plaintiff/respondent because of the conduct of the appellant/defendant No.1, she has suffered pain and mental agony for which she claimed compensation of Rs.15,000.00 apart from the litigation expenses of Rs.10,000.00.

(3.) THE Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for determination:-