ATTAR SINGH CHAUHAN vs N.H.P.C LIMITED NATIONAL HYDRO POWERS CORPORATION

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.06.2017 (wrongly written as 06.06.2013) passed by

the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the relieving order dated 05.07.2017 passed by respondent no.5 (Annexure No.10

to the writ petition).

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed in the respondent no.1 organization in the year 1983 and served various places and offices

of the organization. He was promoted to the post of Head Assistant Grade II in January 2015. On 26.02.2012, petitioner was transferred from Kotli

BHEL project, Devprayag to the Corporate and registered office of the respondent no.1 at Faridabad in T & RE (Transmission and Ruler

Electrification Division). Pursuant to said transfer order, petitioner joined at Faridabad. Meanwhile, due to medical problems of his family members,

petitioner moved a representation before the authorities for his transfer at Dehradun. Representation of the petitioner was considered by respondent

no.1 and on humanitarian ground, petitioner was transferred at Liason Office Dehradun, vide order dated 11.05.2017. Pursuant to said transfer order,

petitioner joined his services at Liason Office, Dehradun, but within a month, respondents again passed impugned transfer order dated 06.06.2017,

whereby petitioner has been transferred from Liason Office Dehradun to Kotli BHEL Hydro Electric Project â€"I A, Devprayag.Â

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned transfer order dated 06.06.2017 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction,

inasmuch as the same has not been passed by the competent authority. According to the petitioner, respondent no.3 was not competent to pass the

transfer order in respect of the petitioner. It is also the contention that the impugned transfer order has been passed by the respondents with mala fide

intention.Â

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Court to

para-11 of the counter affidavit, which is quoted hereunder:

“11. That the contents of para 11 of the writ petition as stated are erroneous misleading hence denied. In reply it is submitted that the posting and

reliving orders of the petitioner have been issued with the approval of the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Engineer (Civil), Head of the Project of

Kotlibhel HE Project, Stage-1A under whose administrative control Liaison Office, Dehradun is functioning and who is competent to post employees

to offices under his administrative control based on work requirement. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been re-transferred vide order

dated 06.06.2017 but, has only been posted at Project site at Devprayag. Bare perusal of the order dated 06.06.2017 which is impugned in the writ

petition would reveal that the petitioner was posted to Township Division Kotlibhel HE Project, Stage-1 A, Bharpoor after he has submitted his joining

at L.O. Dehradun pursuant to his transfer from Corporate Office, Faridabad.â€​Â

Reply to para-11 of the counter affidavit has been given by the petitioner in para-11 of the rejoinder affidavit. Para-11 of the rejoinder affidavit is

quoted hereunder:

“11. That the contents of para no.11 of the counter affidavit are not admitted and vehemently denied. Respondents did not annexed any letter

showing the approval of the competent authority. Moreover, the competent authority to appoint and transfer the employees stands with Senior

Manager Human Resource Head Office, which is very much clear from various transfer order including the transfer order of the petitioner dated

06.08.2014 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) when he was transferred from liaison office Dehradun to Kotli BHEL Pariyojana specifically after

the closing of regional office of Dehradun and conversion of it into regional office.â€​

Supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner, annexing the  copy of Transfer Policy of N.H.P.C. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has taken me through Rule 3.3 of the Transfer Policy, which says that for the purpose of transfer, the Projects/Units/Offices shall be

grouped into the three broad clusters â€" Hard Postings Cluster I, Difficult Postings Cluster-II and Soft Posting Cluster III, Cluster IV and Cluster V.

As per Rule 3.3 of the Policy, Kotli BHEL comes under Cluster III Soft Posting and Regional Office Dehradun comes under Cluster IV, also a soft

posting. Rule 3.4 further provides that transfer shall be made from hard/difficult to soft posting or vice versa on the basis of requirement and

completion of the tenure of an employee at a particular location. Rule 3.12 V speaks about transfer of employees of the level of Supervisors and

below shall effected by (a) Director (Personnel) for transfer between one region to another / Corporate Office and vice versa. (b) Executive

Directors (Regional Office) for transfer within the same region subject to sanction of posts.Â

I have heard Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

material available on file.

From the perusal of counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it would reveal that respondent no.3 is very much competent to pass the impugned

order. Transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation

of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. In the case at hand, though petitioner has alleged that the impugned transfer order

suffers from mala fides but he has not been able to prove the same. Moreover, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, petitioner has not

been re-transferred vide order dated 06.06.2017, in fact, he has been given posting at Project site at Devprayag, which is evidently clear from the

impugned order dated 06.06.2017.Â

In the light of aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the transfer order does not require any interference by this Court and the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed.Â

At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the Court is not inclined to interfere in the transfer order, a liberty

may be given to the petitioner to move a fresh representation for redressal of his grievance and direction may be issued to the authority concerned to

decide such representation at the earliest.

Prayer made is innocuous and deserves to be accepted.

Accordingly, petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation before the authority concerned for redressal of his grievance. If such a

representation is moved, authority concerned shall look into the matter sympathetically and shall pass a speaking order within a period of four weeks

from the date of submission of representation before it.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of finally.

No order as to costs.