Satish Chandra Mishra vs Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1502 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.710 of 2021 Reserved on: 26th February, 2021 Decided on: 2nd March, 2021

.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satish Chandra Mishra .....Petitioner Versus

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and others .....Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? 1 No

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner is a Senior Additional General

Manager (HR) with the respondent-Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam

Limited. Vide office order dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure P-1),

he was transferred from Liasoning Office (LO), Dehradun to

Liasoning Office, Patna. CWP No.423 of 2021 filed by the

petitioner assailing this transfer order, was disposed of on

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

01.02.2021, granting liberty to the petitioner to represent to

the respondent/concerned authority within three days.

Operation of interim order passed on 18.01.2021 with

.

respect to stay of the impugned transfer order qua the

petitioner was to remain in force till decision of the

representation.

The representation so preferred by the petitioner

was rejected by the respondent on 04.02.2021. Aggrieved,

"(i) r to he has once again approached this Court with the following

substantive prayers:-

That a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting

aside the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-1) may very kindly be issued against the respondents.

(iv) During the pendency of petition the Respondent be directed to allow the petitioner to function at the post of Sr. AGM (P&A) at Dehradun or alternatively he may be posted at his choice of

place of posting Delhi Office or at Kathmandu office. Such other or further order, as may be deemed just and may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner."

Transfer to LO Patna has been challenged on

the grounds that (i) it was neither in public interest nor for

any administrative exigency. It was rather based upon

extraneous consideration; (ii) petitioner is left with one year

and four months in his retirement and; (iii) petitioner was

not permitted transfer to a place of his choice as per Clause

10.4 of the transfer policy.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and gone through the pleadings. During hearing of the

case, it has been informed that the petitioner stands

.

relieved from the post in question at LO Dehradun w.e.f.

05.02.2021.

3. The stand taken by the respondent is that its

Regional Office (RO) Dehradun alongwith some other

similar offices in Himachal Pradesh were under

consideration for

closure. Since,

Executives were no more required at RO Dehradun,

therefore, on

12.05.2020, various Senior/Middle

executives Level

were

transferred from RO Dehradun to places of their

requirement depending upon administrative exigencies.

Whereafter, the Regional Office was renamed as Liasoning

Office for limited purpose of carrying out liasoning activities

relating to various clearances/approvals of projects of

Uttarakhand. In December, 2020, respondent-SJVNL

submitted an Asset Monetization Plan (AMP) to the

Government of India for approval, making clear that SJVNL

plans to consider option of sale/lease/development of

building/land in Dehradun. The Government of India

accorded the approval of competent authority to AMP vide

communication dated 04.01.2021 and directed the

respondents to take appropriate action in that regard.

The respondent further submits that as per the

.

approved AMP, its target to dispose of LO Dehradun is by

31.03.2021. In this process, the petitioner was transferred

from LO Dehradun to LO Patna on 06.01.2021. The order of

transfer was necessitated because of abovementioned

administrative exigency. The respondent has further

submitted that no

Executive Level Officer

Department is presently stationed at LO Dehradun in view

of impending closure of LO Dehradun and that at present in HR

only skeletal staff is posted there. Owing to above stated

administrative exigency, petitioner had to be transferred

outside LO Dehradun. His transfer to LO Patna has been

justified on the ground that the petitioner is a Senior

Additional General Manager in the scale of Rs.1,20,000-3%-

2,80,000/-. The post is equivalent to that of Superintending

Engineer in the State with more than four years' tenure on

the said post. The respondents require the expertize of the

petitioner for setting up Buxar Thermal Power Plant in

Buxar, Bihar, where the main plant works have statedly

been awarded and are in progress. The petitioner being a

Senior Executive in HR Department was required in LO

Patna for managing the manpower at Patna.

4. The stand of the respondent reflects that having

.

taken a decision to close their liasoning office at Dehradun,

the services of the petitioner, an officer of the high rank and

drawing the gross salary of Rupees Sixty Lacs per annum,

were certainly not required there. Therefore, no infirmity

can be inferred in transfer of the petitioner from LO

Dehradun. Learned

counsel for the petitioner

contended that the petitioner is due for superannuation in

less than two years', therefore, in accordance with Clause next

10.4 of the transfer policy, he should have been posted at a

place of his choice. This is countered by the respondents by

submitting that the word used in the said clause is 'may'

and subject to vacancy and has to be harmoniously read

alongwith other clauses. Further, his pleaded choice of

place of posting at Delhi office cannot be accepted as no

post is statedly lying vacant there. Additionally, this is a

discretionary power vested with the respondents to be

exercised after considering the administrative exigencies

and requirement of replying respondents. Petitioner, who

belongs to Ranchi (Jharkhand), has been now posted at LO

Patna, inter alia, for managing the manpower at Buxar,

Bihar, where works related to a Thermal Power Plant were

in progress. We find force in this contention of the

.

respondents, more particularly in view of the facts noticed

above. We may also notice here that even at the time of his

transfer to RO Dehradun, the petitioner had unsuccessfully

laid challenge to his posting there by way of CWP No.2013

of 2016. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate

allegations of malafides levelled against the respondents.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any

merit in the instant writ petition and the same is

accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any.

                                         (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)




                                                  Judge





                                           (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
    March 02, 2021                               Judge
         Mukesh