Delhi High Court
Sudhir Pathak vs Indian Oil Corporation & Anr. on 1 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 4863/2013
% 01 August, 2013
SUDHIR PATHAK ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg and Mr. Amit
Srivastava, Advocates.
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.N.Koura and Ms. Paramjeet
Benipal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner impugning the transfer
order of the respondent-employer dated 5.4.2013 whereby the petitioner has
been transferred from Noida to Guwahati.
2. I need not overstress that transfer is an incidence of service.
Employer knows to the best way in which the services of the employee can
be utilized. Employee places himself at the disposal of the employer and
surely not the other way round. In the present case, the transfer order in
spite of being passed few months back on 5.4.2013, petitioner on his request
W.P.(C) No. 4863/2013 Page 1 of 3
because of his personal difficulties got an extension of three months for
joining. Petitioner insists till today on giving various personal grounds
including old age of his parents or his daughter getting married in December
and so on to prevent his transfer. It is also claimed that petitioner has been
victimized because he has asked for promotions and which earlier
promotions were given with delay.
3. I may note that earlier a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.
2846/2013 was filed challenging the same transfer order, and which was
withdrawn on 1.5.2013 because petitioner had been granted extension.
4. I need not say that employees after being transferred to Delhi or
in the National Capital Territory of Delhi do not want to go away from New
Delhi. This is a well known fact in most employer-organizations. Petitioner
out of his service for about 33 years has been in Delhi for about 22 years. If
employees are allowed to thwart transfer order for their convenience, no
organization can function. I fail to find any strength whatsoever in the
arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is being
victimized because the petitioner had asked for promotions in the post. I fail
to understand as to how if promotions are asked for and are dealt with in
accordance with rules, the same can in any manner be a ground to challenge
W.P.(C) No. 4863/2013 Page 2 of 3
the transfer order. I repeatedly put to counsel for the petitioner a query that
when a person approaches a Court he must show a legal right and
corresponding legal obligation and how from the facts of this case does
petitioner have a legal right. Petitioner must have a legal right not to get
transferred and that legal right can only be in terms of the transfer policy of
the respondent-organization. No clause whatsoever has been pointed out in
any transfer policy, much less the same has been filed, that the petitioner
cannot be transferred.
5. Ordinarily, I would have been inclined to impose costs while
dismissing this writ petition but considering that the petitioner is in service, I
am not imposing costs, of course though it appears that petitioner has
enough money for repeatedly engaging lawyers and filing litigations in
Court.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
AUGUST 01, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
