Bombay High Court
Shishir S/O Krishnarao Shete vs Maharashtra State Power ... on 17 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.6570.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO.6570/2016
Shishir s/o Krishnarao Shete
Aged about 56 years, occu: service
R/o Plot No. 13-A, Maitra Vinayak Nagar
Near Hingna Octroi Naka, Nagpur. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited
Through its Managing Director
1st Floor, Prakashgadh, Plot No.G-9
Bandra (E) Mumbai 400 051.
2) The Chief Engineer (Technical)
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited
1st floor, Estrella Batteries Expansion Compound
Dharavi Road, Mumbai.
3) The Chief Engineer (Technical)
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited
Thermal Power Station, Koradi, Nagpur. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. F.T. Mirza, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.A.D.Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondents
...........................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 17 April, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
wp.6570.16
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
18.11.2018, transferring him from Koradi Power Station to Parali Power
Station.
The petitioner is working as an Additional Executive Engineer and
was transferred from Khaparkheda to Koradi Power Station on 04.07.2015, on
administrative grounds. The petitioner is due to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation on 11.07.2018. Just after a year from the date of his
transfer to Koradi Power Station on 04.07.2015, the petitioner was
transferred to Parali Power Station, by the impugned order dated 18.11.2016.
Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
transfer of the petitioner from Koradi Power Station to Parali Power Station is
in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent-Company. It is stated that
the normal tenure or posting of an employee of the respondent-company, as
per the policy, is three years. It is stated that the petitioner was transferred to
Koradi Power Station on 04.07.2015 and just after one year of his transfer, he
was again sought to be transferred to Parali Power Station, by the impugned
order dated 18.11.2016. It is stated that the petitioner is due to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation on 11.07.2018 and as per the policy of
wp.6570.16
the respondent-company, especially Clause (6) of the Guidelines framed by
the respondent-company, an employee is not liable to be transferred within
three years from the date of his retirement and if at all he is liable to be
transferred, he should be transferred to the place of his choice. It is submitted
that the transfer effected by the respondent-company on 18.11.2016 is a mid-
term transfer and special reasons are not recorded in the order of the transfer
though the transfer is made in the midst of the term. It is stated that since the
petitioner is due to retire within a year's time and is desirous of settling in
Nagpur and since the petitioner has to look after his old aged parents who are
in their 90s, it would not be in the interest of justice to effect the transfer of
the petitioner to Parali Power Station.
Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondent-Company,
supported the order of transfer and submitted that an employee does not have
a right to challenge an order of transfer. It is submitted that the guidelines, as
framed by the respondent-company are directory in nature and the petitioner
cannot claim any right on the basis of the guidelines, especially when the
respondent-company has not flouted the provisions of any statute, while
transferring the petitioner. It is submitted that Parali Power Station was not
functional for a long time and since it was made operational only recently, the
petitioner was being transferred in the Boiler Section of the Parali Power
Station, as the petitioner has an expertise in that Section. The learned counsel
wp.6570.16
sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
In reply, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it is wrongful on
the part of the respondents to state that in Parali Power Station some expert
engineers are required and hence the petitioner is being transferred to Parali
Power Station. It is stated that after the impugned order transferring the
petitioner was passed, some other Executive Engineers working in Parali Power
Station have been transferred out of the said Power Station. It is stated that
the statements made on behalf of the respondent-company are merely an
eyewash.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
respondent-company was not justified in transferring the petitioner to Parali
Power Station, when the petitioner was due to retire within a couple of years
from the date of the order of his transfer. The petitioner was brought to Koradi
Power Station vide transfer order dated 04.07.2015. The petitioner desires to
settle at Nagpur after his retirement on 11.07.2018. The old-aged parents of
the petitioner reside with the petitioner and they are in their nineties. In this
background, it was necessary for the respondent-Company to have adhered to
Clause (6) of the guidelines of the respondent-Company, which dis-entitles the
Company from transferring an employee who is at the fag end of his service.
Guideline No.6 provides that if at all the employee is liable to be transferred
at the fag end of his service, he should be transferred to the place of his choice.
wp.6570.16
In the instant case, the petitioner is being transferred, just after a period of
one year from his transfer to Koradi, on 04.07.2015. In the circumstances of
the case, it was not proper on the part of the respondent-Company to have
transferred the petitioner to Parali Power Station, more so when the Company
has transferred some Executive Engineers out of Parali Power Station after
passing the order of transfer against the petitioner. In almost similar set of
facts, this Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Superintending
Engineer working in Khaparkheda Power station, as he was due to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation, within a short time, from the date of his
transfer. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment dated 21st October,
2016 in Writ Petition No.5441/2016 in this regard.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
