Raj Kumar Singh vs Union of India and others

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition dated April 16, 2009 is challenging the order of the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, South-Eastern Railway, Kharagpur dated March 27, 2009, Annexure P2 at p. 16, in so far as he is concerned.

By the order dated March 27, 2009 the Senior Divisional Security commissioner has directed the forty-four persons named in the order to move to their respective places of transfer for which orders were previously made. The petitioner is the fifteenth person named in the order, and he has been transferred from the Kharagpur division of the South-Eastern Railway to its Ranchi division.

Questioning the transfer order the petitioner moved a writ petition that was dismissed. His appeal was also dismissed. The authority issued the transfer order on the basis of Standing Orders No. 70 dated September 27, 2004. The decision to transfer the petitioner was taken for the reason that in the Kharagpur division he had completed three tenures.

The impugned movement order dated March 27, 2009 is questioned mainly on the ground that, since the circular of the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta 700 043 dated July 22, 2008, Annexure P1 at p. 15, was not properly circulated, the petitioner could not apply for modification of the under transferring him from the Kharagpur division to the Ranchi division. According to Counsel, once a transfer order is made, in view of the circular dated July 22, 2008, the personnel concerned acquires a right to apply for modification of the transfer order.

I am unable to accept the argument. It is clear from the circular dated July 22, 2008 that a personnel is at liberty to apply requesting a transfer on any of the grounds mentioned in the circular. Therefore, it cannot be said that a request in terms of the circular can be made only after a transfer order is issued. By submitting an application requesting a transfer on a ground mentioned in the circular the personnel does not acquire a right to stay in the station from which he submits the application.

The petitioner has been transferred in the interest of administration and according to the rules and the provisions of the Standing Order. If he is of the view that he is entitled to benefit of the circular dated July 22, 2008, he can always make an application requesting a transfer to a station of his choice, but he has no right to claim that since he proposes to submit an application, the movement order should not be enforced against him. He is bound to comply with the movement order.

According to Counsel for the petitioner, the authority could not transfer the petitioner from the station in which he was posted at the date the transfer order was issued, since he had less than four years to reach the age of superannuation. For this, he relies on Sub-rule (10) of Rule 93 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The second proviso to the sub-rule, relied on by Counsel, simply provides that when a personnel is going to last posting before superannuation, the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 93 will not apply to the case.

I do not see how on the basis of the proviso in question it can be said that the petitioner could not be transferred from the division, even assuming that he had less than four years to retire. If he had less than four years to retire, then he was free to submit an appropriate application in terms of the circular dated July 22, 2008. Needless to say that he can submit an application for the purpose even after joining the place of posting in terms of the transfer order sought to be enforced by the impugned movement order.

Counsel relies on an unreported single Bench decision dated May 15, 2006 in W.P. No. 665 of 2006 (Hari Narayan Ojha and others v. Union of India and others). I am unable to see how the decision applies to the case. It was not decided in the case that a validly issued transfer order cannot be enforced by issuing a follow-up movement order. In the present case the transfer order, validity whereof was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, has been sought to be enforced by the authority by issuing the impugned movement order.

Counsel has made a feeble attempt to say that the transfer order is bad in law. I fully agree with Counsel for the respondents that after the decision of the Division Bench, the petitioner has no right to say anything questioning the validity of the transfer order.

For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.

Urgent certified xerox of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.