Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr. vs Sahib Singh on 16 May, 2012
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 08.05.2012
Judgment pronounced on: 16.5.2012
+ W.P.(C) 1652/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
SAHIB SINGH ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Ms Geetanjali Mohan
For the Respondent : Ms Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms Saahila Lamba
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, whereby the order dated
10.06.2011 transferring the respondent in this petition from Delhi to Lucknow as
well as the order dated 22.09.2011 rejecting his representation against transfer were
set aside and it was directed that the respondent would be allowed to re-join the
post he was occupying before the transfer and would also be entitled to payment of
regular salary, during the intervening period. The facts giving rise to the filing of
the petition can be summarized as under:-
2. The respondent working with Indian railways, on his promotion as Group
„B‟ Gazetted Officer, was posted as AFA in Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.
He made representation seeking transfer to Delhi. Acceding to the request made by
him, the respondent was transferred to Delhi by downgrading the senior scale post
of senior AFA/FE/HQ, vide order dated 22.06.2009. Vide order dated 10.03.2009,
he was transferred from Delhi to Amritsar. The respondent was again brought back
to Delhi vide order dated 06.01.2011. On 10.06.2011, he was transferred to
Lucknow. The order transferring the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was
challenged before the Tribunal by way of OA No. 2273/2011. The O.A. No.
2273/2011 was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2011 by directing the
respondent to pass a speaking order on his representation. The General
Manager(Railways) rejected the representation of the respondent vide speaking
order dated 22.09.2011. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 09.09.2011
quashed the transfer orders as well as the order rejecting the representation of the
respondent on the grounds that :-
(a) the respondent had been subjected to as many as five transfers;
(b) the normal minimum tenure at a place was three years;
(c) the applicant had been singled out for transfer and the transfer was not
justified on the ground of reasonableness or as per the instructions issued
vide circular dated 29.07.2010.
3. We have carefully perused the OA. We find that no specific allegation of
mala fide was made in the OA against the authority which transferred the
respondent from Delhi to Lucknow. A perusal of the order dated 10.06.2011
would show that the order transferring the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was
passed with the approval of the competent authority. During the course of
arguments, we were informed that CAO was the authority, competent to transfer
the respondent. The OA does not indicate who the officer approving the transfer of
the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was. There is no specific allegation of mala
fide against any particular officer. It is not the allegation in the OA that the person
who approved his transfer from Delhi to Lucknow was for some reason inimically
disposed towards the respondent and that is why he had been transferred from
Delhi to Lucknow. If the respondent was imputing mala fides to any particular
officer of Northern Railways, he was required not only to name such officer but
also to implead him as a party, besides giving details, as to why that officer was
inimically disposed towards him. That, however, was not done, while filing the
OA. Even the Tribunal did not attach credence to the general allegation of mala
fide made in the application. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer of the
respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was actuated by any mala fide intention on the
part of the authority which approved his transfer.
4. It is not in dispute and in fact is clearly mentioned in the speaking order
dated 22.11.2011 passed by General Manager, Northern Railways that the
respondent holding a gazetted post, was liable to be posted anyway in the
jurisdiction of Northern Railways. It is further stated in the order that transfers are
done as a matter of incidence of service and in administrative exigencies without
any discriminative treatment. During the course of arguments before us, the
respondent did not dispute that as per the service conditions applicable to him, he
was liable to be transferred anywhere within the jurisdiction of Northern Railways.
5. This is also not the case of the respondent that the Chief Accounts Officer
who approved his transfer was not competent to do so. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the order of transfer was passed by an authority, which was not competent to
pass such an order.
6. The Tribunal has taken a view that the normal period before an employee
can be transferred is three years. However, no rule/order/circular fixing a minimum
three years period to stay at a particular place has been brought to our notice.
Consequently, we are of the view that in the exigencies of service and for
administrative reasons, it was open for the petitioner to transfer the respondent
even before he had stayed for less than three years at a particular place.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the respondent was staying in Delhi region for as many as 25 years
prior to him being posted at Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, on his
promotion to Group „B‟. This factual assertion was not disputed by the learned
counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted
that as a matter of policy an employee is transferred to another station on his
promotion, and, therefore, the respondent can have no grudge with regard to his
transfer from Delhi to Chandigarh vide order dated 15.01.2008. The learned
counsel for the respondent also did not assail the order whereby the respondent was
transferred to Chandigarh on his promotion to Group „B‟, which a gazetted post in
Northern Railways. As regards the second transfer of the respondent, admittedly
this was made on his request and not due to exigencies of service. The second
transfer to Delhi, having been invited by the respondent, he has no ground to
complain against that transfer. The transfer from Delhi to Amritsar on 10.03.2010
was made in the exigencies of service and in fact was the first transfer while in the
cadre of Group "B" post in Northern Railways. As regards the transfer of the
respondent from Amritsar to Delhi vide order dated 06.01.2011, since the
respondent had persistently being pressing for his transfer to Delhi, this transfer
also must have been pursuant to the efforts made by him to come back to Delhi. In
any case, this transfer being to the place where the respondent wants to continue,
nothing really turns on this transfer. As regards transfer from Delhi to Lucknow
vide order dated 10.06.2011, which is the transfer that was impugned before the
Tribunal, the grievance of the petitioner is that since he is under treatment of a
Railway Doctor at Kishanganj in Delhi, he needs to continue to stay at Delhi so
that his treatment is not disturbed on account of his transfer. A perusal of the letter
dated 09.08.2011 written by FA & CAO of Northern Railway to the respondent
would show that Lucknow, being the capital of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has well
developed medical facilities. Lucknow is also the headquarter of two Railway
Divisions, two railway workshops, Research, Design and Standard
Organization(RDSO) and a training organization (IRITEM). It further shows that
there are developed railway townships, railway hospitals, clinics and welfare
infrastructure at Lucknow, which is adequate to take care of the health problems of
railway employees. It is difficult to dispute that being a large city and also the
capital of the largest state in the country, Lucknow has well-developed and modern
medical facilities including a very well-reputed hospital Sanjay Gandhi Post-
Graduate Institute of Medical Science. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the
contention that if he is transferred from Delhi to Lucknow, the treatment of the
respondent would be adversely affected.
8. In Union of India and Others vs. S.L.Abbas : (1993) 4 SCC 357, the
Supreme Court, considering a challenge to the transfer of a Government employee,
inter alia, observed as under:-
"Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of
transfer is vitiated of by malafides or is made in violation
of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere
with it."
In Shilpi Bose and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1991 Supp (2)
SCC 659, the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed and held as under:-
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with
a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are
made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on
the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding
a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at
one place or the other, his is liable to be transferred from
one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the
competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights.
Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of
executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily
should not interfere with the Order instead affected party
should approach the higher authorities in the Department.
If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day
transfer Orders issued by the Government and its
subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in
the Administration which would not be conducive to
public interest."
Since this is not a case of transfer for mala fide reasons, or transfer by an
authority which was not competent to do so, or a transfer in contravention of any
rule/instruction or declared policy of Northern Railways, it was not open to the
Tribunal to set aside the order of transfer whereby the respondent was transferred
from Delhi to Lucknow.
9. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not
justified in setting aside the order whereby the respondent was transferred from
Delhi to Lucknow. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order 09.09.2011. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
V.K.JAIN, J
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MAY 16, 2012
'sn'
