Giriraj.G vs Union Of India & Ors

K.Haripal, Member J

Applicant is a Cameraman Grade II in Doordarshan Kendra, DDK for shot, Thiruvananthapuram from 29.08.2009. According to him, he had commenced his service on 16.03.1993 at Agarthala. Then he was transferred to DDK, Ranchi on 16.06.1999. Later, he worked at DDK, Santhinikethan from 07.03.2005. After 16 years service in difficult areas he was transferred to his native place on 29.08.2009. Now the grievance is that by Annexure-A1 order dated 30.08.2022 he stands transferred to DDK, Shillong. According to the applicant, such a transfer to the North-East causes him considerable difficulties and hardships. In 2012, while he was on an official tour he met with a motor accident and underwent two surgeries. Even now he has not completely recovered from the difficulties caused in the said incident and is still under Ayurvedic treatment. He has produced the transfer policy and official memorandum which are the guidelines issued by the respondents in the matter of transfer of employees. According to him, there is absolutely no necessity for his transfer to Shillong. It has been passed in arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction, malafide and illegal. Even though he has been transferred to Shillong, no substitute has been posted. As per Annexure-A5, every officer/staff is expected to serve atleast one tenure of two years or one year in difficult areas. He has already worked in difficult areas for about 16 years and therefore such a transfer is not warranted. As per the conditions in Annexure-A4, persons over 45 years shall not be ordinarily posted in a station of high altitude. He is due to retire in 2026. He has his aged mother to be looked after, who is solely depending on him and therefore such an untime transfer to Shillong is sought to be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Thus he seeks to set aside Annexure-A1 transfer order and declare that he is entitled to continue as Cameraman Grade-II in the office of the 4th respondent.

At the time of admitting the application, Smt. O.M.Shalina, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel took notice and sought time to file reply statement. Thus by way of an interim order the transfer as regards the applicant was stayed. The order of stay is in force.

The respondents have raised objections contending that the application is not maintainable. The applicant has all India transfer liability. The transfer policy only states that every employee has a chance of atleast one posting in four years’ tenure in his/her home town or nearest feasible station. But for the last 13 years the applicant is working in DDK, Thiruvananthapuram. Moreover, in DDK, Thiruvananthapuram there is higher Cameraman occupancy, whereas the Cameraman occupancy in Shillong is very low. The transfer was given in administrative exigencies. There is also no substance in the contention that person aged above 45 years shall not be posted to a place of high altitude. For the purpose high altitude means a Station located at an altitude of 2250 meters, but Shillong is located at an altitude of less than 1500 meters. Therefore, such a contention also is not appreciable. The applicant is transferred and posted in Shillong in administrative exigencies. There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the transfer. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

I heard the learned counsel for the applicant Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar and Smt.O.M.Shalina Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. The learned counsel have reiterated the respective contentions in the pleadings.

After going through the materials on record, I feel that the applicant has no legs to stand upon. As rightly pointed out, normally, Courts will be very slow in interfering with an order of transfer issued in routine manner. It is the trite law that transfer can be challenged only if the post is not transferable or being against transfer norms or if malafide is writ large. But the applicant could not make out any of these material requirements.

Evidently, transfers under the respondents are being done following Annexures-A4 and A5 guidelines. The learned counsel for the applicant could not convince this Tribunal that any of these norms has been violated by the respondents in the matter of transfer of the applicant. Even on his own showing he is working in DDK, Thiruvananthapuram from 29.08.2009. It may be true that he might have put in services at most difficult stations during the initial period of his career. But that would not absolve his liability to be transferred to any Station in India, since he has all India transfer liability.

Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the total sanctioned strength of Cameraman in DDK, Thiruvananthapuram is 11 out of which 5 vacancies are there. Out of the remaining 6, the statement of the learned counsel indicates that the remaining 5 are due to retire within a period of two years. Annexure-A4 interdicts transfer of a person within three years of reaching the age of superannuation. In other words, normally, such a person needs to be given convenient posting at his home Station or at the nearest possible Station. That means, the remaining 5 persons cannot be transferred. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has pointed out that the Cameraman occupancy in DDK, Thiruvananthapuram is high, whereas it is very low in Shillong, and therefore such a transfer was made out of administrative exigencies, functional requirements and also for the smooth running of the organization.

Even though it has been stated by the applicant that Annexure-A1 as regards the applicant is hit by arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction, malafide, illegal etc, the applicant could not give supporting materials in favour of such a submission. Such contentions lack particulars also. The applicant could not state that any of the officials of the respondents have any malice or ill will against him so as to single him out and to send him to a far away place. He has no such contention to say that there is any personal prejudice working against him to send him out from his native place. Therefore, in the absence of supporting materials, the submission that it was done in administrative exigencies has to be taken as genuine.

The transfer is an incident of service. An employee does not have any vested right to be posted in a particular Station or to remain at a particular Station for long. Even though the liability of the respondents is to retain him only for four years at his home Station, for the last 13 years the applicant has been remaining at Thiruvananthapuram at a stretch.

I have also meticulously gone through Annexures-A4 and A5 and find that there is absolutely nothing to say that any of the provisions in the guidelines or the OM has been violated in the case of the applicant. As noticed earlier, there is absolutely nothing to say that any personal grudge had worked against the applicant and it is not intended to cause him trouble. It may be true that he had suffered grievous injuries in a motor accident during 2012. He also underwent two procedures. But that had happened about 10 years before and there is nothing to say that he is continuing treatment. Mere reason that he may be obtaining some Ayurvedic treatments is not a good ground to interfere with Annexure-A1 order, which is not vitiated in any manner.

After considering the rival contentions and materials, sufficient grounds are not brought out to interfere with the order under challenge. Nothing is there to show that Annexure-A1 is vitiated in any manner. The Original Application is dismissed. No costs. The interim order shall stand vacated.

Dated 10th November, 2022