K. Kumar v. The Port Blair Municipal Council And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/125/2024 K. Kumar Vs.
The Port Blair Municipal Council and others Mr. Arul Prasanth Ms. Dolly Sarkar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shadatru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents February 9, 2024 [SR] Item No.13 The petitioner prays for a direction on the respondents, more particularly the respondent nos.1 and 4, being the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Secretary, Port Blair Municipal Council, respectively, to relieve the petitioner from the petitioner's present assignment. The petitioner successfully participated in a selection process for the post of Deputy Manager (Finance) against a vacancy in the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL). The post was advertised on 4/23.08.
2023 and the petitioner went through the required levels for final selection including appearing for an interview at New Delhi. The petitioner's provisional eligibility for deputation was communicated thereafter by NHIDCL. The Port Blair Municipal Council(PBMC)/respondent no.
appointment as well. The PBMC forwarded the petitioner's application to NHIDCL on 13.12.2023, issued No Objection Certificate on the same date, gave Vigilance Clearance on 31.01.2023 and issued a Vigilance Clearance Certificate on 12.012.2023. The PBMC also issued an Integrity Certificate to the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 13.12.2023. The petitioner's urgency arises out of a series of letters given by NHIDCL from 30.12.2023 onwards indicating that the petitioner has been selected for the post of Deputy Manager (Finance) on deputation in NHIDCL and the petitioner is expected to report for duty within 10 days from the said letter which was sent on 13.12.2023. Since the petitioner was not relieved by the respondents, the petitioner requested for extension of the petitioner's joining date and 2 extensions were granted on 22.01.
2024 and 30.01.2024. The petitioner is now scheduled to join the post latest by 20.02.2024. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents hands up a Note which states, inter alia, that the petitioner is well versed with the service and accounts rules and there are two Accounts Officer, who may be repatriated to their parent department on 06.04.2024 and 04.08.2024. Counsel submits that the petitioner is an efficient worker and his leaving the PBMC will cause difficulty to PBMC.
Upon perusing the Note handed up on behalf of the respondents, the Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be restrained from joining his new assignment with the NHIDCL
when the petitioner has been selected against the sanctioned post. The respondents' reluctance to relieve the petitioner is contradictory to the Certificates issued by the respondents/PBMC to the petitioner in support of the petitioner's joining the new post. The petitioner has already been given two extensions for joining the new post, hence the reason that the PBMC does not have other efficient officers to fill up for the petitioner is unacceptable at all levels. In any event, the Note is unclear to the extent that it does not spell out any specific reason for the respondents reluctance to relieve the petitioner in terms of the petitioner's letter of appointment and the date of the joining in particular.
Considering the material on record, particularly the series of Certificates issued by the PBMC to the petitioner and the extensions given to the petitioner to join the new assignment by 20.02.2024, WPA/125/2024 is allowed and disposed of by directing the respondents to relieve the petitioner within 7 days from today so that the petitioner is able to join the new post by 20.02.2024. The respondents shall extend all assistance to the petitioner for due implementation of this direction. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.
( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. )