Joybangha Reang vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents on advance notice.

By means of this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the memorandum dated 19.09.2020 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Dasda High School (primary) under Inspectorate of School, Kanchanpur, North Tripura to Pabiachara H.S. School, Kumarghat, Unakoti Tripura. The petitioner's whole grievance as gathered from the petition is that he has two sons and one of his sons who is 12 years of age is severely mentally retarded. His other son is three years' old. In support of that contention, one disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board on 12.10.2020 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] has been produced along with the writ petition. It appears from the said certificate that the son of the petitioner is suffering from 90% disability and that is a case of "severe mental retardation." The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that if he is transferred, bringing up of his retarded son would be seriously jeopardized.

Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred the office memorandum dated 06.06.2014 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] issued by the under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to contend that the government employee who is a care giver of the disabled child may not have to suffer due to displacement by means of routine/rotational transfer. According to the Ms. Lodh, learned counsel, the said policy has been adopted in the State of Tripura. That apart, the petitioner has filed one representation describing his difficulties relating to care-giving to the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura, the respondent No.2 on 20.10.2020 urging him to cancel the transfer order contained in the memorandum dated 19.09.2020 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] on humane consideration. According to Ms. Lodh, learned counsel, the said representation has not been considered and disposed of, as yet.

Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that if the representation has not been considered and disposed of, the respondent No.2 shall after considering all aspects represented therein, shall dispose of the said representation by a reasoned order.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the transfer order, but the employer has the responsibility to look into the difficulties which might be faced by the employee, if a transfer order is implemented. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the representation dated 20.10.2020 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] by taking into consideration all the human aspects particularly the aspect relating to care-giving his son within a period of one month from today by a reasoned order and till such disposal, the petitioner may be allowed to continue in his earlier place of posting.

With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.