Smti. Subhra Mallick v. The District And Sessions Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/327/2026 (IA NO: CAN/1/2026) Smti. Subhra Mallick Vs The District and Sessions Judge Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent July 03, 2026 [AKB] Item No.2 1.

A report in the form of affidavit filed by the respondent is on record. A copy thereof has already been served upon learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.

2.

This writ petition lays challenge to two office orders dated June 17, 2026 and June 18, 2026 issued by the respondent whereby the petitioner has been transferred from her present place of posting to Mayabunder.

3.

The petitioner is presently working at the post of Stenographer Grade-II under the District Judiciary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair.

4.

On June 17, 2026 the respondent issued an office order transferring the petitioner from her present place of posting (i.e. Court of Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division, Port Blair) to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North and Middle Andaman District, Mayabunder.

5.

Upon receiving such transfer order, the petitioner made a representation on the same date before the respondent requesting for reconsideration of the transfer order inter alia

citing health reasons following several surgeries that the petitioner had undergone during the years 2018 to 2024. 6.

On the subsequent day i.e. on June 18, 2026, the respondent issued another office order whereby the earlier office order dated June 17, 2026 was partially modified to the extent that the relieving date of the incumbents was extended from June 19, 2026 to June 30, 2026.

7.

Feeling aggrieved by such orders of transfer, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is physically very weak inasmuch as she has undergone as many as four surgeries between 2018 to 2024. He has taken this Court through the representation dated June 17, 2026 and copies of the medical documents annexed to the writ petition in support thereof in a bid to demonstrate that the petitioner has been suffering from various ailments requiring surgical intervention from time to time.

9.

He next contends that although the District Judiciary at Port Blair has as many as four Grade-I Stenographers and the place whereat the petitioner is being transferred is also one which requires a Grade-I Stenographer yet, the petitioner who is at Grade-II is being transferred there without, in any manner touching the Grade-I Stenographers.

10.

It is further submitted that the petitioner's representation dated June 17, 2026 has been scotched by the respondent by a

one liner. In such regard, he has taken this Court through the letter dated June 22, 2026 issued by the respondent (annexed to CAN/1/2026) whereby the petitioner's representation dated June 17, 2026 was considered and rejected by the respondent. 11.

When this writ petition was entertained by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on June 25, 2026, the Court had directed the reason for rejection of the petitioner's representation to be placed before the Court.

12.

Accordingly, a report to such effect was filed in Court on July 1, 2026 wherein it has been indicated that the medical procedures that have been referred to by the petitioner in the representation had taken place quite some time back and that the petitioner could not produce any document to show that she has been suffering from any ailment as at present. 13.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar submits that an unreasoned rejection cannot be justified by reasons cited subsequently in Court. In support of his contention he relies on the well known authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another - versus - The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported at AIR 1978 SC 851. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the validity of an order must be tested on the basis of the reasons contained in the order itself and the same cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.

14.

He next cited an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of B. Rajalaxmi -

versus - Union of India and others (WP.CT 67 of 2023) delivered on December 14, 2023 to contend that a transfer order made in patent breach of rules governing the transfer can always be interfered with by Court.

15.

He further relied on an unreported decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and others - versus Yogender Mittal to contend that interference with transfer orders is permissible when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. 16.

It was next submitted that since the petitioner is the main care giver of her mother who is a heart patient, the petitioner's transfer would severely affect the petitioner's family. He relied on an office memorandum dated October 8, 2018 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India to prop his contention that transfers of an employee who is the main care giver of a family member with disability should not be lightly ordered.

17.

He then cited the Transfer Policy followed by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to show that representations against transfer orders can be considered on medical grounds.

18.

Mr. Kumar also seeks sometime to file a supplementary affidavit in order to bring on record documents to show the petitioner's present medical condition.

19.

Ms. Babita Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner's representation does not have anything to suggest that the petitioner is having any

such medical condition as would require reconsideration of the transfer order. It is submitted that no document suggesting any current medical condition has been produced before the respondent warranting reconsideration of the transfer order. 20.

It is further submitted by Ms. Das that the District Judiciary at Port Blair is struggling with a severe deficit of Stenographers and as such the petitioner's transfer was a decision well-taken given in the exigencies of the situation. 21.

Referring to the chart containing details of Stenographers Grade-II it was submitted that almost all the Stenographers of the said grade, excepting the petitioner have completed a term of more than three years at Mayabunder and petitioner has thus far spent only one year and seven months there. 22.

It is further submitted that all the difficulties cited by the petitioner (i.e. health issues, care deficit to mother and six year old child) constitute personal inconveniences and that personal inconveniences and hardships of an employee are not considered as a valid grounds to interfere with transfer orders. 23.

Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 24.

It is well settled that an order of transfer is an incident of service and that who should be transferred where is a matter for the employer to decide. It is also well settled that for the Court to interfere with an order of transfer such order should either be vitiated by malafides or should be highly arbitrary or should have been passed in violation of any statutory provision (See Union of India - versus - S. L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444).

25.

It is noticed that no case of malafides has been made out in the writ petition.

26.

Since it stands admitted that there is no policy of transfer and the petitioner's service is not governed by any statutory rule pertaining to transfer, there can be no case for violation of any statutory provision as well.

27.

Insofar as the rejection of the petitioner's representation by a one liner is concerned, Mr. Kumar is quite justified in submitting that such rejection is improper. His further submission that an unreasoned order of rejection could not be supplemented by reasons later also has substance. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra) lays down such salutary proposition.

28.

The petitioner's case of being the main care giver of her mother, though vociferously argued by Mr. Kumar, is unfortunately neither there in the writ petition nor in the representation made before the respondent. There is nothing in the pleadings to demonstrate that the petitioner is the "main care giver" of her mother. In such view of the matter, reliance on the office memorandum dated October 8, 2018 of the Government of India would not aid the petitioner at all. 29.

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Yogender Mittal is concerned, the same was passed in the peculiar facts of the said case where the order of transfer was found to be arbitrary and not in accordance with the provisions of Transfer/ Placement Guidelines, 2010.

30.

In the instant case as has been already noted above, there is neither any infraction of any statutory provision nor any stark arbitrariness. The said judgment, therefore, cannot support the petitioner.

31.

That being the situation, ordinarily, the petitioner's case would have met a negative fate before this Court, however, the peculiar health history of the petitioner persuades this Court to take a divergent course.

32.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone as many as four surgeries between 2018 and 2024. To wit:- a) Laparoscopic Myomectomy in July, 2018.

b) Laparotomy with total abdominal Hysterectomy in October, 2019.

c) Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in September, 2021 and d) Fissurectomy with Fistulotomy and open Lateral Sphincterotomy in April, 2024.

33.

Having undergone so many surgeries in a span of six years with a two year break from 2024 to 2026, it would not be too unreasonable to claim that the person may have become structurally (physically) very weak.

34.

However, while the petitioner has all the historical records of having undergone four surgeries in the span of six years as aforesaid, the petitioner has not produced before the respondent any document to show that the petitioner has any worrisome medical condition even at present. The respondent has therefore rightly not found any basis to consider the petitioner's representation and revisit the transfer order, but

then the petitioner could be called upon to substantiate her claim since a representation had been made with a case of successive surgeries. This Court notes that the present transfer is an exchange of one stenographer with other between Port Blair and Mayabunder. That is to say it is prima faice not a case of reinforcement or augmentation of stenographer's fleet at any of the two places.

35.

In such a special fact situation, this Court is minded to afford the petitioner one opportunity to produce relevant documents to demonstrate that the petitioner's present physical condition is such that she is unable to undertake travel to Mayabunder and stay at Mayabunder but upon putting the petitioner to terms of deduction of leave.

36.

In such view of the matter, the order of transfer passed by the respondent shall be kept in abeyance for a period of ten days from date i.e. till July 13, 2026. The petitioner will be at liberty to produce such documents which the petitioner can, before the respondent by July 7, 2026 in order to demonstrate that the petitioner has a medical condition of such nature that the petitioner is unable to undertake travel to Mayabunder from Port Blair (given the condition of the allegedly not so travel friendly route from Port Blair to Mayabunder) and to stay at Mayabunder.

37.

In case, the documents relied on by the petitioner are not found to be satisfactory, the petitioner will have to join the transferred post as per the date that would be fixed by the respondent. In such event, the entire period of 10 days for

which the order of transfer had been kept in abeyance, would be deducted from the leave that stands to the credit of the petitioner (in the petitioner's leave account) in terms of the relevant service rules. In case the petitioner is able to prove that the petitioner's medical condition is such that she should not be transferred to Mayabunder at the moment, the respondent would take appropriate decision not to transfer the petitioner to Mayabunder.

38.

The respondent shall be free to devise such mechanism as the respondent deems fit and proper to test the authenticity of the petitioner's case and documents as regard her physical inability to travel or to be transferred to Mayabunder. 39.

Needless to mention that in case the respondent rejects the petitioner's representation the respondent would give appropriate reasons therefor.

40.

With the aforesaid observations, WPA/327/2026 stands disposed of. No costs.

41.

Since the writ petition itself has been disposed, the CAN/1/2026 is also stands disposed of accordingly. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)