AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 226 wordsSujoy Paul, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed I.A. No. 1313/2012 for correcting the declaration made in Para 2 of the petition.
The innocuous amendment is allowed. It be carried out forthwith.
Heard on admission.
This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. He is transferred from Shahgarh to Malthon. It is challenged on the ground that the petitioner is a heart patient, his mother is aged, ailing and dependent on the petitioner. The posts are lying vacant at Banda and Sagar. Hence the transfer order and rejecting the representation dated 17.01.2017 may be set aside.
I do not see any merit in the said contention. The respondents have considered that the petitioner has undergone surgery in September, 2012. He is transferred to a distance of 130 K.M. only. Transfer is an incident of service. The transfer order can be interfered with if it runs contrary to any statutory provision (not policy guidelines), issued by an incompetent authority, changes the service condition of an employee to his detriment or proved to be mala fide. No such ingredient is available in this petition.
Personal inconvenience etc. cannot be a ground. The employee does not have any indefeasible right to get transferred at a nearby place. It is prerogative of the employer to decide where the work is to be