Rajni Parmar vs UOI And Others

Nita Chowdhury, J

This OA has been filed by the applicant who was employed as Junior Hindi Translator (JHT) and posted to Armed Forces Transfusion Centre, Delhi Cantt. On 12.05.2017 the applicant was issued a movement order directing her to leave the unit on the very same day. The applicant impugned the aforesaid movement order by filing the present OA before this Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for applicant, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents. The applicant thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide WP (C) No. No.5331/2017 which was disposed of by directing that till the Tribunal decides the issue of interim relief, the operation of movement order dated 12.05.2017 shall remain stayed and fixed the next date of hearing as 12.07.2017.

Today, this matter was taken up for hearing on interim relief.

The applicant has filed this Original Application claiming the following reliefs and interim relief:-

"Relief:

(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 and direct the respondents to continue the applicant as Jr. Hindi Translator in Delhi.

(b) To declare the action of respondents in declaring the applicant as surplus as illegal and unjustified and issue appropriate consequential directions.

(c) To allow the O.A. with costs.

Interim Relief:

Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 12.05.2017. In case, the said order is not stayed, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. The applicant has a good prima facie case in her favour and against the respondents. Balance of convenience is also lies in the favour of applicant and against the respondents."

The only relief sought by the applicant by means of interim relief is to stay the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 by which she has been transferred to AFMSD, Lucknow. It is the contention of the applicant that she cannot be termed as surplus staff and hence she cannot be transferred out of her present posting which is at Delhi.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on interim relief.

It is the contention of the respondents that the order of movement issued to the applicant is based on the fact that the issue of surplus post in JHT (present post of this applicant) has been flagged by the audit authorities following scale audit of pay bills for month of March 2017 in respect of all units under PCDA, Western Command and also vacancy of JHT in same pay scale at AFMSD Lucknow. The audit authorities have advised vide their letter dated 01.03.2017, that holding of any category of employees whether Officers or staff, in excess of authorized strength is highly irregular and all necessary remedial measures which also include transfer out of the concerned employees are required to be initiated immediately to remove the irregularity.

Respondents aver that in view of the same, there is no ground for staying the impugned Annexure A-1 order. In fact they aver that making any further payments to staff in excess of authorised strength is the only reason for the movement order issued to the applicant.

It is very true that in the matters of transfer, the Courts/Tribunals are not required to intervene. In normal circumstances, intervention of the court would be only confined to such cases where either mala fide is alleged and proved or there is a violation of some statute or where the laws of natural justice have not been respected. It is fully considered that the courts are not to go into the issue like justification of the administrative orders. In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi vs. U.P. Jal Nigam and Others, 2003(11)SCC 740 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"3. In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration."

Similarly in Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 2009 SC 1399, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"19. Indsiputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved..."

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890 has held as under:

"6. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed."

In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the facts of this case, we find absolutely no merit in the applicant's plea for grant of interim relief and the same is rejected.

List the OA on 28.03.2018.