Madhya Pradesh High Court
P.N. Tiwari vs Union Of India on 15 June, 2021
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1 WP-9128-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-9128-2020
(P.N. TIWARI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri S. M. Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging orders dated 18.3.2020,
13.3.2020 and 26.6.2020, contained in Anneuxres P/8, P/9 and P/12
respectively. Vide order dated 18.3.2020, petitioner was ordered to rejoin at
Hollangi, Itanagar. Petitioner had challenged the said order before the High
Court in Writ Petition No. 7251/2020. Writ Petition was disposed off vide
order dated 28.5.2020, directing respondents to consider the representation
of petitioner. Representation of petitioner was considered and rejected vide
order dated 13.3.2020.
Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that order
has been passed in violation of Clause 4.11 and 8.1 of transfer policy.
Petitioner was not allowed to rejoin at Jabalpur and complete his tenure
posting. If spouse of employee is also in Government Service then both
husband and wife may be posted in the same station. Transfer order is
malafide and a punishment posting has been given to petitioner as he has
made complaint against Executive Director (HR) and against Member of
Airport Authority of India. There is no vacancy at Hollangi, Itanagar for the
post of Senior Manager EC. There is only one vacancy in petitioner's cadre
for SM/AGM in Civil Engineering, Discipline at Jabalpur Airport in fiscal year
2020-21. On these grounds, petitioner has made a prayer for quashing of the
orders dated 18.3.2020, 13.3.2020 and 26.6.2020 respectively.
Counsel appearing for the respondents controverted the allegations of
malafides made against respondent nos. 7 and 8. It is submitted by him that
Management has been considerate in considering the request of petitioner to
Signature Not
SAN
Verified retain him in Madhya Pradesh. He was retained at Khajuraho, Bhopal and at
Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2021.06.17
11:08:41 IST
2 WP-9128-2020
Jabalpur when he was transferred. Management is aware of the fact that
spouse of petitioner is working in Madhya Pradesh, therefore, adjustment has
been made and petitioner was retained in Madhya Pradesh as far as possible.
Competent Authority has decided to post him in Hollangi as per project
requirement of Airport Authority of India. New Airport at Hollangi is being
developed by respondents, therefore, petitioner's services are required at
Hollangi. Counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment
reported in (1992) 1 SCC 306-Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta.
Apex Court in this case held that there can be no doubt that ordinarily and as
far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be
posted at the same station even if their employers be different. However, this
does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their
choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making
the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. It is submitted that
maintaining Airport at Arunachal Pradesh is strategic requirement and also to
provide Air connectivity to State Capital of Arunachal Pradesh. Hollangi is
20 Kms. away from State Capital Itanagar. Petitioner has been transferred in
administrative exigency. Petitioner submitted his resignation at AAI and he
joined at ICMR at Bhopal. He had three years lien in AAI. When petitioner
made request for joining at AAI, same was allowed and he was posted and
rejoin at Hollangi Arunachal Pradesh. Respondents have also denied that there
is no vacant post at Hollangi. It is further submitted that if two Officers are
posted there it does not mean that petitioner's service is not required and it is
the prerogative of employer to decide which employee is to be posted
where. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the respondents, they
prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Clause 4.11 of the transfer policy does not create any right in petitioner
to finish his tenure at Jabalpur. Clause 4.11 of the policy only provides that
Signature Not
when an Officer staff is returned from deputation their stay at previous
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2021.06.17
11:08:41 IST
3 WP-9128-2020
station/ region before going on deputation shall be taken into account while
affecting transfer. Policy does not say in un-equivocal terms that employee
returning from deputation shall be allowed to continue his tenure at previous
station. Previous station shall be taken into account, but finally posting and
transfer order of employee returning from deputation is to be based on
administrative exigency and need of employer. Petitioner has done part
tenure, Jabalpur thereafter he has resigned and gone to ICMR. On his
request, he was again allowed to retain at AAI. Order giving direction to
petitioner to join at Hollangi does not violate 4.11 or 8.1 of the transfer policy.
Clause 8.1 of the policy does not deal with employee who returned from
deputation. Petitioner may have some service dispute with respondents, but
that does not mean that respondents are acting malafidely. Malafides have not
been established by the petitioner. Petitioner has been retained in State of
Madhya Pradesh as far as it was practicable for the respondents. Whether
petitioner's services are required at Holangi Airport is to be considered by the
respondents and they are the best Judge for it.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ
petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
DUBEY/-
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2021.06.17
11:08:41 IST
