P.K. Jha vs Minerals & Metals Trading ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2784 Del

*      HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Judgment delivered on: May 26th, 2010


+                       W.P.(C) No. 2094/2010


P.K. JHA                                          ..... Petitioner
                        Through:   Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

                                   .

-versus-

MINERALS & METALS TRADING CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajinder Dhawan with Ms. Shafaalii Dhawan, Advocates

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes

Veena Birbal, J. (oral) *

1. Rule.

With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined Mica Trading

Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „MITCO‟) on

13.11.1985. The said company was originally incorporated on

18.06.1973 as a 100% subsidiary of the respondent and the same now

forms the Mica Division of the respondent. On 01.04.1985, the

respondent came up with a "MMTC (Staff) Promotion Policy, 1984".

Clause 6.1 of the said promotion policy provides that there will be no

transfer in the staff cadre from one region to another except if the

same is due to vigilance proceedings and/or desired by some outside

agency like CBI. On 08.04.1996, MITCO merged with the respondent

under the Rehabilitation Scheme and the staff officials of MITCO

became the employees of the respondent.

It is alleged that the petitioner and other similarly placed

employees made a representation to the respondent for giving them a

benefit of pay revision which have been given to other employees

(other than merged employees from the erstwhile MITCO) of the

respondent but the respondent did not pay any heed to it. Petitioner

and other employees have also filed a writ petition bearing no.

9994/2009 against the respondent seeking indulgence of this court for

giving their dues at par with the employees of the respondent.

It is alleged that in order to harass the petitioner and few other

employees, respondent had issued transfer orders with the sole

motive to harass them. It is stated that the petitioner has been

transferred to Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Bhavan, Jammu vide office

order dated 20.01.2010 on rotational basis. On 29.01.2010, another

office order has been issued whereby the petitioner has been relieved

from the office at Jhandewalan in order to join at Jammu. Petitioner

requested for a cancellation of the transfer order as the petitioner has

an old aged mother of 95 years as well as a son who has to undergo

surgery for his legs which were fractured. Petitioner also requested

that he was unable to go with the meagre salary. Petitioner applied

for an earned leave which was turned down. It is prayed that the

impugned transfer order dated 20.01.2010 is in violation of "MMTC

Staff Promotion Policy, 1984" and as such the petitioner cannot be

transferred there. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

an order of the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P.(C) No.

15091/2009 wherein the transfer was done from Paradeep to Sanchi

showroom, Mata Vaishno Devi Bhawan. The said High Court vide

order dated 20.10.2009 has issued directions to reconsider the

transfer of petitioner therein to any other region in terms of policy

decision of the respondent.

3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein

allegations of harassment are denied. Respondent has admitted that

there is a „Staff Promotion Policy‟ as per which there will be no

transfer in the staff cadre from one region to another except in case of

vigilance proceedings or as desired by the outside agencies like the

CBI. It is alleged that there is no violation of the aforesaid „Staff

Promotion Policy‟ as is alleged and the place where the petitioner has

been sent vide office order dated 20.01.2010 i.e. comes under the

„Jhandewalan Regional Office‟ where the petitioner is presently

working.

It is contended that the „promotion policy‟ relied upon by the

petitioner does not prohibit the transfer of the staff within the same

region and the said showroom where petitioner has been sent falls

under Jhandewalan region office where petitioner is presently

working. Therefore, the transfer is within the same region.

4. I have considered the submissions made and perused the

material on record.

The relevant portion of the "MMTC (Staff) Promotion Policy"

which is necessary for the disposal of present petition is reproduced

as under:-

"6. Transfer

6.1 There will be no transfer in the staff cadres from one region to another except if the same is due to vigilance proceedings and/or desired by outside agency like CBI, etc."

5. The question to be seen is as to whether the transfer in question

is in violation of aforesaid policy.

6. The stand of the respondent is that the present transfer is

within the same region. In support of this, learned counsel has placed

on record Annexure R1/1 which shows the list of respondent‟s offices

regionwise. The relevant portion is as under:-

"JHANDEWALAN REGIONAL OFFICE Jhandewalan Jewellery Complex, F-8-11 Flatted Complex, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi - 110055. Tel.:011-23623950, 23623952, FAX-23633175, 23671369 E-mail : head_jjc @ mmtclimited.com

Sanchi Showrooms

i. SCOPE Building, Ground Floor, Core-I, Lodi Road, New Delhi.

ii. Jhandewalan Jewellery Complex, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi iii. Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Mata Vaishno Devi Bhawan"

7. It is seen that Sanchi Showroom at Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine

Board, Mata Vaishno Devi Bhawan comes within the "Jhandewalan

Regional Office" of the respondent and transfer is in the said regional

office itself. Annexure-R/1, on Page 218 of the Paper Book shows

various offices of respondent like corporate offices, offices at South

Zone, Bellary regional office, Hyderabad regional office, Bengaluru

regional offices, offices at East Zone, offices at West Zone, etc. Had

the petitioner been transferred to one of these offices, then his

contention is correct. Here the transfer is being done in the same

regional office as such contention raised has no force.

8. Counsel for respondents has contended that in the case, W.P.(C)

No. 15091/2009 relied upon by counsel for petitioner, the transfer

was not in the same region but was from one region to another i.e.

from Paradeep which comes under "Bhubaneswar Regional Office" to

Sanchi Showroom, Mata Vaishno Devi Bhawan (under ROJJC) which is

under a different Regional Office, as such said judgment has no

applicability to the facts of the present case. Nothing contrary is

pointed out by counsel for petitioner.

9. It may also be mentioned that transfer/posting order dated

20.01.2010 is for a limited period i.e. from 29.01.2010 to 30.04.2010

(which is already over), 30.07.2010 to 15.10.2010 and from

29.12.2010 to 28.02.2011 which are for short period.

10. Though the petitioner has alleged harassment against

respondent but has not placed on material any record to substantiate

the same.

11. As regards the ailment of his mother and son is concerned, same

has been considered by the respondent and a letter dated 25.05.2010

is placed on record wherein it is stated that in his latest family

declaration, petitioner has not shown his mother as dependent upon

him and also not submitted any documents in support of ailment of his

son. Further, in the present writ petition, no material is placed on

record to substantiate the same.

12. Learned counsel for respondent has pointed out that at the

place of posting at Jammu, petitioner will get free food, boarding,

lodging and Rs. 2,500/- per month as daily allowance.

In view of above discussion, by issuing impugned order dated

20.01.2010 respondent has not violated the "Staff Promotion Policy"

as is alleged. In any event, it is not the case of petitioner that the

same is a statutory policy.

13. Further, it is the prerogative of the management as to which

employee should be sent at which place in accordance with the

exigencies of work. It is also no more res integra that the

transfer/posting of an employee is within the domain of an employer,

who has to take a decision when and where an employee is to be

transferred from his present posting. The employee does not have the

vested right to work at a particular place. Law is also well settled

that the court should be stopped to interfere with the order of

transfer. The court should not interfere with a transfer order unless

such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provision or

suffers from mala fide as has been held in the case of Shilpi Bose

(Mrs.) and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.; AIR 1995 SC 532.

14. In view of above discussion, the writ petition stands dismissed.

VEENA BIRBAL, J MAY 26, 2010 kks