Madras High Court
R.Sivakumar vs The Managing Director on 8 April, 2025
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
W.P.(MD)No.30658 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.02.2025
Pronounced on : 08.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.(MD)No.30658 of 2024
and WMP(MD)Nos.2285, 25739 and 25742 of 2024
R.Sivakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Madurai Division, Bye-Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 010
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Madurai Region, Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 16. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned
transfer order passed by the second respondent in Parvai.Niruvagam/A1/11071/
2024 dated 26.11.2024 in respect of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.30658 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the second
respondent in Parvai.Niruvagam/A1/11071/ 2024 dated 26.11.2024.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(I) Initially, the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation as
Non ITI Helper (Tyrena) on 02.11.1995. The said appointment was made on
temporary basis. Subsequently, the said appointment was made permanent vide
order dated 23.09.1996 and the said post was upgraded to the post of Senior
Helper and it was re-designated on 13.05.2010 as Senior Attender. In the month
of November 2007, the petitioner completed his Post Graduate Diploma in
Computer Applications and in the year 2009, he completed his Post Graduate in
Master of Computer applications and in the year 2014, he completed his master
degree in Business Administration. As the petitioner has acquired Master
Degree in Computer Applications and other degree relating to the Computer
Courses, the second respondent by order dated 16.02.2016 had re-designated
the petitioner from Senior Attender to Programmer with some conditions.
Thereafter, on 23.02.2019, the petitioner has made a representation to the
respondents stating that the post of Programmer is equivalent to that of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
Computer Programmer and requested him to fix the pay scale on par with other
similarly placed persons and that the petitioner is also entitled to same scale of
pay on par with the Computer Programmer. But the second respondent passed
the order on 24.12.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner against the said
order the petitioner has filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.737 of 2020 before
this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated
09.10.2020 and the impugned order there is quashed.
(ii) Against the said order, the respondent Corporation preferred a writ
appeal in WA(MD)No.678 of 2021. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed by a
Division Bench of this Court dated 08.07.2021. Against the judgment of the
Division Bench, the respondents preferred an Appeal before the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.8423 of 2022 and the same was dismissed by judgment dated
22.03.2023. Thereafter, the respondents did not comply the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court. Thus, he filed a contempt petition in
Cont.P(MD)No.764 of 2023. During the pendency of the said contempt petition,
the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation appeared before the Court
as per the order of the Court and sought time to comply the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
(iii)Since the petitioner filed contempt petition against the respondent
management, they accused him with false accusations and false charges
resulting in the second respondent issued punishment order imposing stoppage
of increment for three months without cumulative effect. Thereafter, due to
serious heath problems, the petitioner applied for medical leave from
14.11.2024 to 05.12.2024 and the same was sanctioned by the second
respondent. Thereafter, on conduct of medical examination, Doctors opined a
Oesophageal problem need to be monitored frequently and advised to take rest
under medical supervision. Hence, the petitioner on 04.12.2024 sent a
representation to the second respondent to extend the medial leave till
02.01.2025. Without considering the same, by proceedings dated 07.12.2024
directed the petitioner to join duty though the petitioner is having eligible
medical leaves for more days. On 07.12.2024, the petitioner admitted in the
hospital due to ill-health.
(iv) In the interregnum period, the petitioner came to know through his
co-employee that by proceedings dated 26.11.2024, the second respondent has
passed impugned transfer order by transferring him from commercial
department to legal department (MCOP) on the date of issuing the transfer
order, the respondents are in person appeared before the Hon'ble Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
Bench in contempt proceedings on 26.11.2024 after attending the court
proceedings the respondents passed the impugned order with illegal intention
to dilute the contempt proceedings. The transfer order is not communicated to
the petitioner till the date of filing of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said
transfer order dated 26.11.2024, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
passed by the second respondent is illegal, arbitrary an legally not sustainable.
He contends that the second respondent passed the impugned transfer order to
harass the petitioner to withdraw the contempt proceedings. Hence, the
impugned transfer order is punitive in nature and liable to be set aside. The
learned counsel further contends that the second respondent issued the transfer
order to transfer the petitioner to do the work of legal department (MCOP). The
nature of work at legal department is that he would have to travel all the way
where the Madurai region buses has service and if any accident took place, the
petitioner has to travel there and inspect irrespective of work time and also
wherever MCOP cases pending against the respondent Corporation, the
petitioner need to travel. This work pattern is completely contrary to the
petitioner's designation, which is against the order of this Court. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
counsel further contends that the second respondent sanctioned medical leave
from 14.11.2024 to 05.12.2024 for 20 days to the petitioner. By knowing very
well about granting medical leave the second respondent passed the impugned
transfer order on 26.11.2024 while the petitioner was on leave and as on the
date, admittedly the respondents are in person appeared before the Division
Bench of this Court in contempt proceedings, which shows the unfair practise of
the respondent and the order of transfer is punitive in nature and thus, it is liable
to be set aside.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent. It is averred in
the counter affidavit that the appearance of the officials before the Hon'ble
Court has nothing to do with the administrative order of transfer, which was
passed on 26.11.2024. In fact, the proposal for transfer was already discussed in
the office note dated 22.11.2024 along with other office staff due to
administrative reasons. Since the writ petitioner claimed to have specific skills
in programming, in order to utilize the services in consonance with the skill in
the needy department, the order of transfer was passed. It is averred that being
the employee of the Transport Corporation even at the time of appointment, it
was made clear that his services were liable to be transferred. As such, transfer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
is not only a condition of service but an incident o service. Moreover, no
prejudice would be caused inasmuch as the transfer is from one seat to another
seat. It is further stated that the work already discharged by the petitioner at
commercial section is a clerical and data entry work and it was allocated to
others since the petitioner was under leave. However, in compliance with the
interim order passed by this Court, he was now posted to his original post.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the service of the writ petitioner is very much required in the legal
section and considering the same, the order of transfer was passed. He further
submits that the order of transfer is passed purely on administrative grounds and
there is no malafide intention. As the petitioner is claiming the post of
Programmer, he is bound to discharge his duties in systemizing the legal
section. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that due to the interim
order passed by this Court, the work of computer programing of the second
respondent was stalled and sought to vacate the interim order passed by this
Court by dismissing the writ petition.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, all the facts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
from the date of appointment of the petitioner as Tyreman till the disposal of the
Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent Corporation are undisputed. It is
also an admitted fact that the petitioner succeeded in his earlier round of
litigations upto the Apex Court and subsequently filed a contempt petition
against the respondents for non-compliance of the orders of the court. The
respondents appeared before the court in person as per the orders of the court
and sought time to comply the orders. During the pendency of the said
proceedings on 26.11.2024, the impugned order is passed. It is an admitted fact
that on the same day, the respondents appeared before the Division Bench of
this Court in person. It is also an admitted fact that the second respondent
granted medical leave to the petitioner from 14.11.2024 to 05.12.2024. During
the period of that medical leave on 26.11.2024, the impugned transfer order is
passed. The averments made in the counter affidavit by the respondents appears
to be intentionally to damage the petitioner, all those averments are made. In
paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that the
petitioner was re-designated as Programmer without any change in his
emoluments and in the same paragraph, it is stated that there is no such post of
Programmer available in the Transport Corporation. There is no answer from
the respondents if there is no such post of Programmer for what reasons they re-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
designated the petitioner as a Programmer. It appears the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the year 2024 also pertaining to
the alleged irregularities happened in the year 2019, which also discloses that
during the legal proceedings pending before this Court against the respondents,
to victimize the petitioner, they initiated the proceedings against the petitioner.
Admittedly, the contention of the petitioner is that he is suffering from serious
health problems and Doctor advised to take rest under medical supervision at
the relevant point of time and later, he was periodically under the medical
checkup also not considered by the respondents. The vindictive attitude of the
respondents also establishes from rejecting the medical leave letter dated
14.12.2024 of the petitioner to extend his medical leave, though the petitioner is
having eligible medical leaves for more days and insisting the petitioner to join
duty immediately.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot
brush aside the contention of the petitioner that the attitude of the second
respondent in passing the impugned order with mala fide intention and with
punitive nature. This Court is very conscious that the court should not interfere
with the orders of transfer, which are issued in discharge of administrative or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
executive powers. But if the transfer order is issued in mala fide or in
colourable exercise of power, the court is bound to interfere since mala fide
exercise of power is not legal exercise of power.
8. In the present case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of transfer impugned in
this writ petition is punitive order issued with mala fide intention and as such, it
would not sustain in the eye of law and it is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned
order passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2024 in respect of the
petitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.04.2025
NCC : yes/no
Index : yes/no
Internet: yes/no
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
To:
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Madurai Division, Bye-Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 010
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Madurai Region, Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 16.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
CM
Pre-delivery order made in
and WMP(MD)Nos.2285, 25739 and 25742 of 2024
08.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:59:51 pm )
