WP(C) 1392/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. A.K.Goswami, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.N.B.Choudhury, Advocate appearing for the petitioner . Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, Learned Standin g Counsel , Food Corporation of India (FCI) appearing for the Respondents. Challenge made in the instant writ application are to the order dated 21.12.200 9, letter dated 05.02.2010, Order dated 23.02.2010 as well as Order dated 24.02. 2010, issued by the authorities of Food Corporation of India, whereby and whereu nder , the petitioner was promoted to the post of AG-I (A/Cs) and transferred to District Office, FCI, Aizawl and thereafter released from the District Office, FCI, Shillong. The Petitioner is serving as AG-II (A/Cs) in the District Office, F.C.I., Shillo ng. He has been declared as protected workman vide Notification No. IR ( P & ID) / 9-2/2009 dated 22.12.2009 being the office bearer of the Nationally recogniz ed Union Viz. Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh ( Sangh for short ) Vide office Order No. 14/09 dated 10.12.2009, the petitioner was promoted to the pos t of AG-I ( A/Cs) on regular basis. By consequent Order dated 21.12.2009, the pe titioner was transferred and posted to the District Office, FCI Aizwal. The peti tioner’s case is that the said transfer order has been passed in violation of cl ause 10 of the Transfer Policy guidelines issued by the competent authority of F CI vide Circular dated 21.11.2002. Relevant Clause 10 of the aforesaid Circular reads as follows : The office bearers of any of the Union/ Staff Association including recognised Unions are not exempt from transfers. However, subject to administrative conveni ence, the President and the General Secretary of the recognised Unions at the Al l India, Zonal and Regional levels may not be transferred outside the station du ring the period of employee holds such positions. This concession/ immunity will be allowed maximum for two tenures in the capacity of President or Secretary. The petitioner’s further case is that while the transfer policy guidelines speci fically speaks that General Secretary of the recognised Unions at the All Indi a Zonal and Regional level may not be transferred outside the station during t he period of the employee holding such position, Respondents authority ought not to have issued the impugned order dated 21.12.2009. Thus feeling aggrieved, t he Sangha took up the matter and the Zonal Secretary of the Sangha submitted a representation before the Executive Director, ( Zone) , FCI on 24.12.2009 reque sting the said authority not to transfer the petitioner outside the station, he being the General Secretary of the Sangha. However, the representation so submit ted was not considered by the authority as would reveal from the communication d ated 05.02.2010. Thereafter, by Office order dated 23.02.2010, the petitioner wa s released from his present place of posting for reporting to the Area Manager, District Office, Aizwal. In the said Order, it was made clear that the petitione r will be released w.e.f. 02.03.2010. Vide Order dated 24.02.2010, the Area Mana ger, Shillong directed the petitioner to be released w.e.f. 02.03.2010 (A/N). However, the said order has not been served upon the petitioner as on date. More over, till date, the petitioner has not been served with any of the impugned ord er. It has been stated at paragraph 16 of the petition that the petitioner is on lea ve w.e.f. 24.02.2010 in order to attend the Union works at Guwahati. Mr. Goswami appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is violative of principles of natural jus tice and administrative fairplay. More so, the respondents authority has violate d its transfer policy guidelines issued vide Circular No. EP-03-2002-33 dated 21 .11.2002, inasmuch as, Clause 10 of the said guidelines gives concession to the office bearers of the recognised Union and such concession is allowed for a maxi mum two tenure in the capacity of President and Secretary. In view of the same, impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed, sub mitted Mr. Goswami. Mr. Roy, Learned Standing Counsel, FCI on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred on promotion and therefore, the duty of the peti tioner is to obey the transfer order and join at the place of posting as directe d by the authority. Mr. Roy has further submitted that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he is a protected workman and as such he ought no t to have been transferred cannot be said to be a matter of right and the same i s subject to administrative convenience, more so, it is a settled position of la w that in case of transfer, it is the authority concerned who knows well whom to transfer and where to transfer. Authority may transfer any employee to anywhere on administrative exigencies and if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the transfer order, he could have brought it to the notice of the authority b y submitting representation, but that has not been done. The petitioner has dire ctly filed the writ petition without submitting any representation before the au thority. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. Also caref ully perused the statements made on oath in the petition alongwith the annexures appended thereto. It is an admitted fact that when a person is aggrieved by tra nsfer order, he is not debarred from submitting representation against the trans fer order narrating his difficulties and grievances and it is obligatory on the authority to process the representation and pass a necessary order keeping in vi ew the public interest and the difficulties faced by the official. Therefore, considering the grievance raised and submission made by the learned C ounsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, without keeping the matter pending, the w rit petition may be disposed of at this stage itself directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the Respondent No. 2 ventilating his grievances, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not submitted any representation till date, tho ugh his case has been espoused by the Union. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation before the Re spondent No.2 by Monday the 8th March, 2010. Respondent No. 2 shall dispose of t he same by a speaking order within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of re ceipt of the representation so submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner may a lso submit a copy of the writ petition along with the annexures appended thereto before the authority as well as a certified copy of this order for doing the ne edful. It is, however, made clear that till the disposal of the representation, the re lease orders dated 23.2.2010 and 24.02.2010 shall remain suspended. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of . No Costs.