IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND.MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No.231 (AP) /2011 1. Smti. Jayenti Pertin, W/o Sri. Yashik Pertin, LDC of Deputy Commissioner’ Office, Anini, P.O.Anini, P.S. Anini, Dist.Dibang Valley District. 2. Shri Makhan Lal Nath, S/o M.C. Nath, LDC of Deputy Commissioner’ Office, P.O.Anini, P.S. Anini, Dist.Dibang Valley District. (common cause) : Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. The State of Aurnachal Pradesh, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar-791111. 2. The Secretary (District Administration), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar-791111. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, Anini, Arunachal Pradesh. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing, Arunachal Pradesh. : Respondents PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA For the Petitioners : Mr. A Mannon, : Mr. TC Chutia, : Mr. BD Swema, : Ms.H Chutia, : Mr DK Roy, Advs For the Respondents : GA, Arunachal Pradesh. Date of hearing : 29.08.2012. Date of Judgment and Order : 07.12.2012 2 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) This proceeding was filed by writ petitioners seeking releifs as follows:- “Under the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is prayed that your Lordships would be graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Respondents to transfer the petitioners from Anini to Roing by implementing the Govt. Scheme/Policy dated 15.06.07 (Annexure-4) within specified time frame in the matter of transfer and posting of Ministerial staff to the newly created Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing which has been provided by the scheme dated 15.06.07, taking into the length of services rendered by the petitioners at Hard Place, Anini and also on the medical grounds and/or after perusal of the records and hearing the parties make the rule absolute and/or pass order or orders or appropriate direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness petitioners shall ever pray.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State respondents. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present proceeding are that erstwhile Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh was bifurcated into 2(two) districts, namely; Dibang Valley District with Headquarter at Anini and Lower Dibang Valley District with Headquarter at Roing with effect from 16.12.2001. The area within the administrative district of Anini has been termed as Hard Area while places covered by Roing District was called as Soft Area. 4. Districts were termed as aforesaid depending on the surface conditions, landscape, geographical location, accessibility to such place from other areas as well as infrastructural availability in such place. Anini District is treated as Hard place due to difficult topography, peculiar geographical situation and lack of proper infrastructure including adequate transportation and other related facilities. On the other hand, Roing District is termed as Soft Area due to its easy accessibility from all the places and also for its geographical position , surface conditions and infrastructural availability which are far more people friendly. 5. The bifurcation of erstwhile district of Dibang Valley caused a lot of administrative problems, more particularly in regard to bifurcation of ministerial and Grade-IV staff. On earlier occasions, whenever a district is bifurcated, WP(C)No.231(AP)2011 3 ministerial staff working in the establishment falling under the newly created district stood automatically transferred to the new district and the Government too issue independent notification effecting transfer and posting of ministerial staff into the newly created district “as is where is basis”. 6. The principle “as is where is basis” which is followed till the time of bifurcation of erstwhile Dibang Valley District, as stated above, has, however, caused widespread resentment amongst those ministerial staff who were posted within the jurisdiction of newly created Anini District since the fear of their being posted in difficult places for all times to come, now, looms largely on them. On the other hand, those persons who were lucky enough to be posted in Soft Area of Roing were likely to stay in such area indefinitely. 7. In order to do justice to large section of ministerial staff in matter of transfer and posting in view of bifurcation of District of Dibang Valley to 2(two) new Districts, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued the letter dated 27.02.2002 which was addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, Anini and Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing and it gave necessary guidelines in the matter of cross transfer and posting of ministerial staff in the districts aforesaid. 8. It has been alleged that some of the employees posted in Roing District apprehended their transfer to the Hare Area in the wake of implementation of the guidelines, incorporated in letter dated 27.02.2002 and as such, they preferred a writ petition before this court which has been registered as WP(C) 3134/04 challenging the decision of the Government to effect the cross transfer of ministerial staff. High Court initially granted stay order as sought for by petitioners therein. 9. However, some parties, aggrieved by such stay order, got themselves impleaded as parties having filed a miscellaneous proceeding. This court, vide its order dated 23.12.2004, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition holding that the WP(C)No.231(AP)2011 4 Government was competent enough to evolve a policy in matter of transfer and posting of Group-C and Group-D employees of the erstwhile Dibang Valley District. The said decision was challenged in the appeal vide WA No. 42/2005 and 43/2004. 10. The Division Bench of this High Court before whom the appeals were so laid, dismissed the appeal on hearing the parties affirming the judgment of single judge, passed in WP(C) 3134/04. The matter was ultimately carried to Apex Court of the country. However, the Special Leave Petition filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Division Bench rendered in WA 42/2005 and 43/2005 was also dismissed. 11. In the meantime, the Government introduced a new scheme dated 15.06.2007 for bifurcating the joint (Ministerial) cadre of Lower Dibang Valley District and Dibang Valley District. The new scheme prescribes some guidelines and parameters for affecting cross transfer in best possible way taking into consideration the interest of persons affected by such transfer. 12. However, the employees of Lower Dibang Valley District again filed another round of writ petition vide WP(C)263(AP)2007 challenging the new policy or scheme dated 15.06.2007. The proceeding was contested by all the parties who are likely to be affected by the decisions of the court rendered in the aforesaid proceeding. After hearing the parties thereto, this court vides its judgment dated 14.05.2007 not only rejected the prayer made in the aforesaid proceeding but also directed the Government to implement the new policy with the following direction. “21. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of by dismissing the challenge made by the writ petitioners to the right and authority of the State Government to notify the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 and also the legality of the new scheme. At the same time, having regard to the facts noticed above, it is directed that the scheme notified on the transfer and posting of Ministerial Staff of the two bifurcated soft and hard districts would be implemented only after an appropriate clarification is issued by the Government with regard to those areas which should be construed as middle belts for allotment of marks under the impugned order dated 15.06.2007. The shall be no order as to costs.” WP(C)No.231(AP)2011 5 13. However, not being able to stall the implementation of the new policy vis-à-vis cross transfer of ministerial staff of erstwhile Dibang Valley district, some employees with vested interest started visiting the corridors of powers and they were to a great extent succeeded in stalling the transfer process over a long period of time presumably with the blessing of their political masters. However, in that process, the genuine employees who deserve to be transferred to Soft Area for their working in hard place over a long period of time suffer enormous suffering, hardship and above all injustice. 14. The petitioner No. 1 & 2 , they claim, are also employees, who, under the new policy, deserve to be transferred from Anini to Roing for their being posted in difficult area over a very long period of time. Since the State Government has done nothing to implement the policy aforesaid causing great suffering to employees who continues to be posted in hard place for unreasonably long period, they are compelled to approach this court with a writ petition requesting this court to issue necessary direction requiring the State respondents to transfer them from Anini to Roing in the terms of policy in Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2007. 15. In that connection, it has also been pointed out that three posts of LDA and three posts of UDA are still lying vacant in Roing District to be filled up by employees transferred on deputation for a period of two years on rotation basis. It has also been contended that the petitioners were already recommended by Deputy Commissioner concerned way back in 2009 proposing their transfer to Roing on deputation for a period of two years on rotation basis and in that list, their names appear at serial No.