AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Pyare, Member- (A)
Shri Amit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) This Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure -1) passed by respondent no.2 with respect to transfer of applicant.
(ii) This Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure – 2) passed by respondent no.2.
(iii) This Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents not to give effect to the transfer order dated 21.01.2021 after ten months.
(iv) Any other order which this Tribunal deems fit in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer/Electrical and was posted at Delhi Division from 21.05.2008 to 23.09.2010. The applicant is currently posted as Senior Section Engineer/Electrical/Train Lighting (TL) Depot, Moradabad with effect from 13. 02.2020. After passing of the transfer order dated 20.01.2021, the same was not implemented by the respondents themselves for almost a period of one year and now the same is being sought to be implemented after long delay which itself indicate that there was no administrative exigency existing at the time of issuance of transfer order. Vide letter dated 31.03.2021 of the Railway Board cancelled the transfer order in view of the current ongoing pandemic of the employees working on sensitive post. The applicant’s wife is also working as Govt. Teacher in Moradabad itself since 2018 and children of the applicant are studying in Class III and Class VII at Moradabad. The Railway Board Circular provided for posting of husband and wife at the same station and also not to implement any transfer during middle of the academic session. On 20.01.2021 the applicant transferred from Moradabad to Nazibabad in place of respondent no.4 while respondent no.4 has been transferred to Moradabad. The transfer order has been passed only to adjust respondent no.4 at Moradabad during middle of the academic session. Several representations dated 22.1.2021, 05.10.2021, 06.10.2021, 07.10.2021 and 09.10.2021 were moved by the applicant before the competent authority as well as the Railway Board ventilating his hardship consequent to impugned transfer order, however, till date no reply has been received by the applicant. On October 2021 applicant came to know that respondents are in the process of relieving the applicant after ten months in pursuance of the impugned transfer order. The applicant has filed OA No.906/2021 challenging the transfer order dated 20.01.2021. Vide judgment dated 01.11.2021 the Tribunal disposed off the original application with a direction to treat the O.A. as representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order and till then the applicant’s transfer shall be kept in abeyance. On 22.12.2021 the respondent no.2 illegally rejected the representation of the applicant. Aggrieved by the orders dated 20.01.2021 and 22.12.2021 the applicant has filed the present original application.
Respondents in their counter reply have submitted that the applicant was appointed as JE App./Elect. ACSP/BH/New Delhi and transferred to Moradabad Division at his own request on 10.09.2010. The applicant has worked at Moradabad Station since 2010 in different capacities. The administration has kept the applicant at his desired location for eleven years. In the present circumstances, he has been transferred to Najibabad as per administrative requirement on 08.12.2020, but he joined at Najibabad on 11.02.2020 as SSE/Elect/Najibabad. While passing the speaking order the Railway Administration has duly considered the Railway Board Circular dated 21.12.2021 and in exigency of service and in the interest of railway Administration applicant has been posted at the other station in compliance of RBV No.10/2008 dated 11th August 2008. According to above RBV, sensitive posts should be rotated every two or three years.
Applicant in their rejoinder affidavit has almost reiterated the same facts as mentioned in the original application. In addition the applicant has submitted that according to the transfer policy of the respondents the husband and wife should be posted at the same station and in rare circumstances only their posting can be denied at the same station for which sufficient and adequate reasons are required. In the present case, the applicant's wife is already working at Moradabad as a Govt. Teacher and applicant has requested to continue his posting at Moradabad itself in terms of the said policy however, the said request was not considered by the respondents nor any reasons were given as to why the applicant cannot be continued on the said post in view of the said policy. Hence transfer of the applicant is clearly in violation of transfer rules. It is also evident that transfer order of the applicant was not implemented for almost a year which clearly shows that no administrative exigency existed at the time of issuing transfer order of the applicant. This clearly shows that there was no immediate requirement of the applicant at the transferred station on administrative exigency. The applicant was replaced by one Shri Naved Akhtar who was already working at Moradabad as SSE/Electric/Store/Moradabad and he has also submitted his request for transfer to Bareilly on spouse ground which was later on implemented and he was transferred at Bareilly on spouse ground. Now the post on which the applicant was working is lying vacant. It is also submitted by the applicant he was transferred in contravention of RBV No.10/2008 as four years tenure is required to be completed on any sensitive post for further transfer of the staff. If all the posts of SSE/Electric are added to the list of sensitive post even then the applicant was not eligible for transfer as he was posted there as in charge for about eleven months only before transfer order was issued.
Heard the rival submissions and verified the documents available in this original application.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4975 of 2009 in the case of Rajendra Singh Versus State of U.P. and Others has held as under:-
“5. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; (2004) 11 SCC 402].
The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides.
In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.', this Court held:-
In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to- day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
On the basis of above discussions and citations the original application lacks merit, as the transfer order is not in violation of any mandatory rule or malafide. Applicant was on the same station for more than ten years and he can’t claim that he should be posted permanently on the same station. If at all, he has any grievance, he can take up it with the competent authority for its redressal in the light of relevant rules/regulation and policy of the department.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this original application. The original application is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the original application is dismissed. No Costs.
All the related MAs stands disposed of.