WP(C) 5921/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation. I have also heard Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. In terms of the order passed earlier, Mr. Borah, learned Standing counse l, GMC has produced the relevant records. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-’C’ order dated 22.10.2009, by which he has been transferred from Dispur Zone and attached to the office o f the Additional Commissioner, which is stated to be located at Panbazar. It app ears that the petitioner has already been released from Dispur Zone pursuant to the said transfer order vide Annexure-’D’ order dated 29.10.2009. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.5040/200 9 challenging the said transfer order dated 22.10.2009. The writ petition was di sposed of by order dated 23.11.2009 directing the Commissioner of the respondent -Corporation to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the wife of the petitioner. The said representation was submitted on 27.10.2009. In the said representation, it was contended that the wife of the petitioner, being un der certain ailments for the last couple of years has been advised proper rest a nd that her husband i.e. the petitioner is to look after their children. It was further contended that since the office of the petitioner is very nearer to their residence, the petitioner has been somehow managing his official as well as household duties. Thus, it was the case of the representationist that her hu sband should be retained at Dispur as the office of the Additional Commissioner is far away from the place of residence. The aforesaid representation submitted by the petitioner’s wife has bee n disposed of by the Annexure-’G’ order dated 27.11.2009. By the said order, the representation submitted by her has been rejected. The operative part of the or der reads as follows :- In pursuance to the order dated 23.11.2009 passed in WP(C) No.5040/2009 by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, the undersigned has considered the represent ation filed by Sri Anil Deka’s wife and has also perused his service records. It appears from the records that Sri Deka is serving in the Dispur Zone for the la st more than seven years, i.e. since 06.06.2002. Even if it is assumed that Sri Deka’s wife is suffering from certain ailments, the same is not stated to be in curable, and the same is likely to be cured on proper treatment. Furthermore, th e transfer of Sri Anil Deka is within the city area. No employee has any right t o be posted at any particular place forever, because transfer is not only an inc idence of service, but also a condition of service, and as such it is necessary in public interest and in the interest of efficiency in administration. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has once again filed thi s writ petition. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order has b een issued at the behest of one Sri Girin Deka, Assistant General Secretary of t he Employees’ Union. The allegation made in the Annexure-’C-1’ repre sentation dated 23.10.2009 is to the following effect :- Sir, it is unfortunate to be mentioned that I being at Sl. No.7 at the promotion list, I have been choosed to transfer leaving all six employees above me, the reasons difficult to understand by me. Sir, I have been made a victim b y the Union Leader Sri Girin Deka, who has persuade various authorities to haras s me due to some personal reasons arose between my brother-in-law Sri Munin Nath with wife Smti. Juri Deka, the younger sister of Sri Girin Deka. Sir, I am ready to go in any other branch of G.M.C. except the office i. e. Additional Commissioner, G.M.C. as thee is some risk of my life and other sor t of harassment therein. Mr. A.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the p etitioner is to carry out the impugned order of transfer, he will be under const ant threat of the Union leaders. On the other hand, Mr. S. Borah, learned Standi ng Counsel, G.M.C. submits that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is totally ill-founded. He submits that the earlier representation submitted by the petitioner’s wife being confined to only the aspects mentioned above, the petit ioner cannot be permitted to take some new grounds. Mr. A.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed to go thr ough the entire records in which the impugned transfer order has been initiated and effected. He fairly submitted that the records do not reveal any interferen ce on the part of the Union leaders. However, he submits that the transfer order having been issued on the basis of the desire expressed by the incumbents named in the impugned transfer order, same has affected the position of the petitione r and he has become the victim of the circumstances. Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, G.M.C., on the other hand, submi ts that merely because some requests were acceded, same by itself cannot be said to be the victimization of the petitioner, more so, when he will remain in Guwa hati itself. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed o f providing that the Administrator, G.M.C. may deal with the above-quoted conte ntion raised by the petitioner in the Annexure-’C-1’ representation dated 23.10. 2009 and dispose of the Annexure-’I’ representation dated 14.12.2009. While de ciding the said representation, the said Administrator may also take into accou nt the above-quoted allegation made by the petitioner in his annexure-’C-1’ rep resentation dated 23.10.2009. No opinion is expressed regarding merit of the cas e of the petitioner. Let the representation be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 25th January, 2010. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, G.M.C.