Kerala High Court
Ambily Joseph vs Director General Ncc on 16 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
W.P.(C) NO.5454 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AMBILY JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE T.M. JOSEPH,
SHALOM, TC 10/1379, CRO-36, VATTIYOORKAV P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013
BY ADV ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR GENERAL NCC,
NCC HQ WEST BLOCK-IV, R K PURAM, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110 001
2 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL,
NCC, DIRECTORATE, COTTON HILL BUNGLOW,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 801
SRI. S. MANU, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WPC. 5454/2024
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 16th February, 2024)
The petitioner, a Senior Girl Cadet Instructor (Sr.GCI) with the National Cadet
Corps (NCC) has been transferred as per Ext.P2 from Trivandrum to
Kottayam District. Challenging the transfer order, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C)No.26728 of 2023. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed
the competent authority to take up the representation filed by the petitioner and
to dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner not later than two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. Till such time, the petitioner
was allowed to continue on the basis of the interim order passed in the said case.
In compliance with Ext.P5 judgment Ext.P6 order was passed on 06.10.2023,
rejecting the request and directed to move to the station to which she has been
transferred. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 as well as Ext.P6 transfer orders to
the extent it relates to the petitioner.
2. The counsel for the petitioner Smt. Anitha Mathai Muthirenthy argued
that Ext.P1 transfer policy was violated in toto by passing Ext.P2 transfer
order. Clause-7 of Ext.P1 regulated the procedure to be followed for Rotational
Transfer Policy involving change of station (RTP). There is a specific clause that
deals with employees who are due to superannuation within two years. It states
that any employee who is due for superannuation within two years will be retained
in the same DTE/Branch even after completion of the maximum prescribed tenure
in order to ensure the smooth processing of pension papers and other retirement-
related matters and also to ensure pre-retirement planning for the individual. The
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is due to
retire/superannuation on 31.05.2026.
3. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel argues that the
petitioner has been continuing in Trivandrum station for the last 27 years, and due
to organizational interest and public interest, she has been transferred out to
Trivandrum to a nearby place in the State itself, i.e., Kottayam District. There are
only 3 posts in Trivandrum, and at present, the current manpower is in excess
of the authorisation of 4. Taking into consideration this aspect also, Ext.P2 transfer
order was passed, transferring the petitioner as well as 7 others to different
stations. The representation of the petitioner as directed by this Court in Ext.P5
has been duly considered on the basis of Ext.P1 transfer policy. He points out that
as per sub-clause (b) of clause-(III), keeping the view of organisational interest,
which overrides individual interest inter-directorate or intra-directorate transfers,
can be done on administrative grounds by the competent authority. The petitioner
cannot rely on clause-7 of sub-clause (III) and content that she is due to retire
within two years, and therefore, the transfer is bad. It can be seen that Ext.P2
order was passed on 14th July 2023, and the petitioner superannuated only on
31.05.2026. Therefore, the 2-year period is not applicable to the petitioner's case.
4. Heard counsel on either side.
5. Ext.P1 transfer policy takes care of the procedure to be followed in
respect of rotational transfer involving the change of station. The competent
authority in an organization has the right to decide on the administrative reasons
as well as the organization structure as to who should work in a station. It is settled
law; the transfer is an incidence of service. An employee who accepts the post is
bound to accept any transfer orders issued in the interest of the organisation or
for administrative reasons. It can be seen from Ext.P2 that the petitioner has been
transferred from Trivandrum station to a station in Kottayam District. It is also a
fact that the petitioner had been working for the last 27 years in one station. The
employee does not have a vested right to be posted in a particular place of his /her
choice. It is always the domain of the employer. A perusal of Ext.P6 would show
that all the relevant points raised by the petitioner in her representation have been
taken into the case and held that there is no contravention of any Rules and with
malafide intention. On perusal of Ext.P6, I am satisfied that in compliance with
Ext.P5 judgment, Ext.P6 is in order; therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to
any of the reliefs sought.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner being a single mother and
giving care to her mother who is ailing from several diseases, and also the fact that
her son is in the last year of graduation is given the liberty to file representation
pointing out all these facts to the competent authority once more pointing out that
she is due to retire on 31.05.2026, so that there would be smooth processing of
the pension papers and other retirement relating matters.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
ss
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5454/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICY DATED
13.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE LETTER NO.
12210/P&T/DGNCC/PERS (C) DATED 14.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE NO.51/2023
DATED 8.8.2023
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
24.7.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2023 IN
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.10.2023
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.1.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.1.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
