The single-judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that transfer is incidental to service. An employee has no Fundamental Right or for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting at a place of his/her choice. It is absolutely within the domain and prerogative of the transferring authorities and the court will not sit in appeal over their decisions.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was transferred from Sonamura Sub-Jail to Gandachherra Sub-Jail vide transferred order issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura, and the impugned order is challenged in the present writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner challenged the impugned order on the following grounds
- The petitioner has been frequently transferred,
- The transfer is aimed to accommodate one Sri Tapan Shil,
- His present health conditions,
- Rules framed for regulating the transfer of jail employees.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that the impugned order is only passed considering the public interest. It was furthermore submitted that the petitioner had been transferred on his own request and once his wife made a representation on the health ground of the petitioner to the concerned Minister of the Jail Department, who personally took interest in it at his behest the petitioner had been transferred to a place of his choice.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that the transfer is incidental to service. Employees do not have a vested right to request a transfer or posting to a location of their choosing, nor do they have any fundamental rights in that regard. The transferring authorities have complete jurisdiction and sovereignty over it; the court will not hear an appeal of their decisions.
It was furthermore observed that it turns out that in the present case, the respondent—the State—transferred the petitioner three times at his request and once at his wife's request. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Government has overlooked the petitioner's difficulties and hardships. It is evident from the current instance that the Jail Department is now managed by just four Pharmacists. Pharmacists are required in all of the Sub-Jails run by the respondents, and the four pharmacists including Petitioner must actively help the government in managing all of the convicts housed in those sub-jails.
It was noted that given the difficult circumstances the employer is facing, government personnel must likewise respond to the situation. The broader public interest and seamless administrative operations shouldn't be jeopardized when a transfer order is made in good faith.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any arbitrariness, and the transfer of the petitioner has been made in the interest of the public as would be apparent from the impugned order itself.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case title: Sri Shyamal Chakraborty Vs The State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) No.783 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
