R.K. Kaira vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 273 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This petition is directed against the order of the respondents transferring the petitioner to Madras from New Delhi on promotion as Deputy General Manager. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of his transfer and requiring him to relinquish charge in Delhi where he had been working as Engineer-in-Charge. Admittedly the petitioner is working in a service where he is liable to transfer all over the country.

(2) The petitioner was appointed Assistant Engineer on 1 June 1976 and his initial appointment was at Dehradun where he worked up to 7 October 1979. He was transferred to New Delhi on the same post on 8 October 1979 where he worked up to 23 June 1985. He was promoted as Deputy Engineer-in-Charge and remained posted in New Delhi up to 8 July 1989. Thereafter as Engineer-in-Charge he was transferred to Bombay where he took charge on 10 July 1989 and remained there up to 4 November 1990. During the period of his posting at Bombay the petitioner was sent abroad for training etc. and after his return he was posted at New Delhi as Engineer-in-Charge w.e.f. 5 November 1990 till the impugned order of transfer was made.

(3) The petitioner has challenged his transfer on two grounds: (1) that it was against the policy, and (2) that it had been done because of his filing earlier a writ petition (C.WNo. 1343/92) wherein he had challenged the seniority list. In that petition in fact there are three petitioners and as many as 13 respondents. The petitioners therein say that respondents 6 to 13 could not have been senior to them. Contention of the petitioner on this ground is that his transfer is malafide.

(4) On filing of this petition we issued a notice to show cause to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time stayed the order dated I March 1993 whereby the petitioner was asked to relinquish his posting in Delhi, and in fact this letter mentioned that the petitioner stood relieved with effect from the forenoon of I March 1993 from the New Delhi Centre and a direction issued to him to take charge of Deputy General Manager of the Madras Centre after availing of the usual joining time. This writ petition was filed on 9 March 1993. We recorded the statement of the petitioner that as per the order of transfer dated 26 November 1992 and as per policy he could not have been transferred on promotion. Our attention was drawn to this order wherein as many as 14 Deputy General Managers were mentioned who had been promoted to this post, 13 of them remained posted at the same station, the petitioner who figured at item No. 14 was transferred to Madras, the person at item No. 15 had been transferred to Calcutta but the petitioner said that he was on the verge of retirement and sent to Calcutta on his own volition which was his home town. It was in these circumstances that we stayed the operation of the order dated 1 March 1993.

(5) The respondents filed their answer to show cause notice and reply to the stay application. We find that the petitioner misrepresented that the order dated 26 November 1992 was a transfer order. In fact was not so. As pointed out by the respondents, the officers mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 9 in the order dated 26 November 1992 were promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager by order dated 23 December 1991. By that order certain postings/transfers of the officers on their promotion as Deputy General Managers had been made. By order dated 26 November 1992 the promotion of the officers mentioned earlier in the order dated 23 December 1991 had been regularised and that is why they were kept at the place of posting. The order dated 26 November 1992 merely regularised the postings of the officers and was not an order of transfer as represented by the petitioner. No policy has been shown to us under which the petitioner could not have been transferred on his promotion as Deputy General Manager to Madras. We do not think that the transfer could be said to be malafide merely on the ground that the petitioner along with two others had filed a writ petition in this Court challenging his seniority. We also find that the petitioner has put in about 17 years of service and during this period except for three years' spell at Dehradun and about 1-1/2 years at Bombay he always remained posted in New Delhi. Respondents have also pointed out that when the petitioner was sent for training abroad a bond was taken from him and he was informed in clear words that he was liable to be posted in any branch of the respondent after training and no representation regarding posting would be entertained.

(6) We do not find any legal right of the petitioner has been infringed for us to interfere. Dismissed. Interim orders made on 11 March 1993 shall stand vacated.