The court emphasized that the principles of seniority and the standard operating procedure (SOP) for transfers were guiding principles, not binding and that the government had the prerogative to deploy its workforce as needed for the efficient functioning of public service.
Brief Facts:
The applicant, Mr. Mukesh Kailash Samdani, a Senior Pharmacist, sought relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal after being transferred from CGHS Kanpur to CGHS Chandigarh, despite his preference for Pune or Mumbai due to personal reasons. He claimed that the transfer violated government procedures and principles of seniority, while the respondents argued it was based on administrative needs. The tribunal ultimately dismissed the case, affirming the government's prerogative to transfer employees for administrative reasons.
Applicant's Contentions:
The applicant contended that the transfer order from CGHS Kanpur to CGHS Chandigarh violated the government's own standard operating procedure (SOP) for transfers. He argued that he had provided two choices for transfer, Pune and Mumbai, in accordance with the circular, and the respondents were obligated to consider these choices. The applicant also claimed that the transfer disregarded the principles of seniority. Despite several pharmacists being senior to him in terms of tenure at Kanpur, he was the one selected for transfer. He argued that the transfer was arbitrary, as it did not follow the established procedure and principles governing transfers. He cited precedents to support his contention.
Respondent's Contentions:
The respondents maintained that the transfer of the applicant was based on administrative exigencies. They argued that the competent authority has the prerogative to transfer employees to any location within India, and that transfer policies are only guidelines, not statutory provisions. They contended that the applicant's request for transfer was considered in light of the SOP for transfers, and the transfer was made as per the needs of public service and administrative feasibility. The respondents questioned the timing of the applicant's filing of the Original Application (OA), claiming that it was premature and violated the Administrative Tribunals Act. They argued that the applicant should have waited for a response for at least six months before approaching the tribunal.
Observation of the Court:
The court observed that the transfer of the applicant was based on administrative exigencies and the government's prerogative to deploy its workforce in the best interest of public service. It noted that the transfer policies and SOP for transfers were guidelines, not statutory provisions, and that the competent authorities had the discretion to transfer employees as needed. The court also emphasized that the principles of seniority and the SOP were guiding principles, not binding in the face of administrative requirements. It cited several precedents to support the contention that a government employee had no vested right to be transferred to a particular place of their choice. The court made it clear that the transfer was not arbitrary and did not violate any statutory provision. The court further pointed out that the applicant had joined a transferable job, and there was no justification for him to avoid or evade the transfer order. The court dismissed the applicant's claims, affirming the government's right to transfer employees for administrative reasons.
The decision of the court:
The court's decision affirmed the government's discretion in making transfers and dismissed the applicant's claims, stating that the transfer order was not arbitrary and was made in accordance with administrative needs.
Case No.: O.A. No. 375/2023
Case Title: Mukesh Kailash Samdani vs. Union of India and Others"
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Advocate for Applicant: Ms. Esha Mazumdar
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
