Delhi High Court

Sh.O.P.Sharma vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr. on 7 August, 2013

Author: Valmiki J. Mehta

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) No. 4867/1998
% 7th August, 2013

SH.O.P.SHARMA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.M.Sudan, Advocate.

VERSUS

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra and Ms. Sumedha
Dang, Advocate for R-1.
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 one Sh. O.P.Sharma against his

employer-Airport Authority of India impugning the orders dated 16.7.1998

and 7.8.1998 whereby the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant

Manager was cancelled as per his request, inasmuch as petitioner on being

promoted was transferred to Jaipur, but since petitioner did not want to go to

Jaipur and wanted to remain in Delhi, he agreed not to take the promotion to

the post of Assistant Manager if he is retained in Delhi.

2. The only issue which is required for determination by this Court is

that whether the petitioner was illegally transferred when he was given his
WP(C) 4867/1998 Page 1 of 7
promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in terms of the order of the

respondent no.1 dated 29.5.1998. What is argued before me is that

petitioner as per his appointment was appointed to the headquarters quota,

and by posting the petitioner to Jaipur, he was being asked to perform duties

of the field stations, and therefore, petitioner could not have been validly

transferred to field stations. It is accordingly argued that if the transfer to the

field station at Jaipur is bad, therefore, withdrawal of his promotion as

requested by him should also fall.

3. Respondent no.1 in its counter-affidavit has stated that petitioner was

transferred to Jaipur field office because it is necessary for the headquarters

quota employees of the respondent no.1 also to have experience even of field

stations and which experience helps them to better perform their duties in

the headquarters. In the counter-affidavit, it is not disputed that the

petitioner is in the headquarters quota, however, petitioner like various other

persons was transferred to a field station in order to enable petitioner to get

experience for working at the headquarters. The posting of the petitioner at

Jaipur is not permanently to a field station service.

4. Ordinarily, transfer is an incidence of service. An employer knows

best how to use the services of an employee. Employer can very well

WP(C) 4867/1998 Page 2 of 7
transfer and post an employee to a particular post so that the employee gets a

particular type of experience and is better equipped to perform the duties in

his main post. In the present case, actions of the respondent no.1 to transfer

the petitioner to Jaipur would have been illegal if the petitioner was

transferred from the headquarters quota service position to the field unit

quota service position, but, this is not so. It is not the case of the petitioner

that petitioner's status was being changed from an employee in the

headquarters quota to an employee in the field unit quota. Once that is so, I

fail to understand any irrationality or illegality in the action of an employer

requiring an employee such as the petitioner to take experience at a field unit

by his transfer to the field unit and which was also done to various other

officers, thirteen in number, as stated in internal page 5 of the counter-

affidavit. A person such as the petitioner can prevent his transfer only if the

rules or policy of the respondent prevent the impugned transfer. No rules of

the respondent no.1 or any policy of the respondent no.1 has been filed

before me by the petitioner that persons in the headquarters quota cannot be

transferred to field units so that such persons can also get experience of field

units. I do not think it is in any manner unreasonable for an employer to state

that an employee must have all round experience so that he can perform his

job better.
WP(C) 4867/1998 Page 3 of 7
5. Admittedly, the petitioner, by means of his representations dated

9.6.1998 and 19.6.1998 specifically represented that only if his request to

retain the petitioner at Delhi is agreed, then, petitioner will accept

promotion, and, petitioner himself in the alternative requested that in case

his out of Delhi transfer is to take place, then, petitioner would not like to get

transferred, but, he would refuse promotion and stay at Delhi. The relevant

portion of the representation of the petitioner dated 9.6.1998 reads as under:-

"In view of above submissions I request that I may be allowed to join
duties on promotion as Asstt. Manager in Corporate hqrs against the
existing vacancy & to that extent the office order under reference may
please be modified failing which this representation may be treated as
refusal of promotion under protest without subjudicating my legal
right."

6. The letter of the petitioner dated 19.6.1998 reads as under:-
"The General Manager (Pers)
Airports Authority of India
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan
New Delhi.
Sir,
Reference is made to your office order No.A
20011/94/86-EH dated 16th, June 1998. I beg to say that in my
representation dated 09/06/98, I have already refused (copy
enclosed) my promotion for Assist. Manager in case my request to
retain me at Delhi is not agreed to. It is therefore, requested that
the letter of release my please be cancelled & obliged.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-

7. A resume of the aforesaid facts show as under:-
WP(C) 4867/1998 Page 4 of 7
(i) Petitioner was given promotion to the post of Assistant

Manager from the post of Office Superintendant.

(ii) Petitioner, by the same order was asked to report to Jaipur on

transfer.

(iii) There is no illegality in asking an employee to take transfer to a

field station so that the employee gets different experiences including a

particular type of experience by working at a field unit, and which would

help the employee to do his job better at the headquarters.

(iv) No rules of respondent no.1 or any policy of respondent is filed

to show that a headquarters quota person cannot be transferred for getting

experience to a field unit.

(v) It is not as if petitioner's appointment from the headquarters

quota service was being changed to the field unit service quota.

(vi) Petitioner himself by his representations dated 9.6.1998 and

19.6.1998 agreed that if the management agrees not to transfer him, he

agrees to forgo the promotion.

8. In view of the above, petitioner is estopped from challenging

the withdrawal of the promotion in view of his own representations dated

9.6.1998 and 19.6.1998 inasmuch as once a person takes a benefit of his
WP(C) 4867/1998 Page 5 of 7
stand, then, he cannot thereafter turn around to claim the benefits which he

has given up because he has got other benefits. As the saying goes you

cannot have your cake and eat it too.

9. Counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that transfer of the

petitioner was malafide because petitioner was a President of a Union I

however do not find that this aspect in any manner in intself can invalidate a

transfer order of an employee such as in the present case, when the employer

wants that petitioner must get experience in a field unit. Surely, employees

can be required to have experiences of different branches of an organization,

not only to better understand the organization but also because such

employees can thereafter better serve the organization. Also, it is not the

case of the petitioner that the petitioner was being permanently posted at the

field unit on being transferred from the headquarters. Therefore, there is no