AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order dated 15.3.2002 in
No.E.II/OP/2001-02 and for directing the respondents to retain the petitioner in the first respondent Institute at Chennai.
The petitioner, who was initially appointed as helper under the first respondent, which is fully aided by the Union of India, Ministry of Human
Resources, in course of time got himself technically qualified and was posted as a technician. He had made request to transfer him to any
Engineering Department in the Unit at Chennai. Initially such request had been turned down. Subsequently to his dismay, the petitioner had been
transferred to a unit at Kerala under the impugned proceedings. Such transfer order has been challenged in the writ petition mainly on the ground
that transfer has been made for a collateral purpose.
Whatever may be the worth of the contentions raised in the writ petition, it is obvious that in view of the subsequent events, the relief claimed by
the petitioner cannot be granted to him. It is obvious that even though initially an interim order of stay was granted, subsequently it was found that
before stay was granted, the petitioner had been relieved and subsequently, the stay order was vacated. Initially the transfer of the petitioner was
considered to be one made on the basis of his own request disentitling him to claim transfer allowance available at the time of transfer.
Subsequently, however, petitioner himself made a request to the authority to treat his transfer as if on normal and regular basis. Such request has
been subsequently accepted and transfer has been treated to be one made on regular basis and not on request of the petitioner. Thereafter the
petitioner joined at the new place of posting and apparently claimed transfer allowance. In the meantime, the petitioner has also given in writing that
he did not want to proceed with the writ petition. Subsequently, by filing additional affidavit, the petitioner claims that such writing has been given
on the basis of coercion and not given voluntarily. In a writ petition it is difficult to resolve such hotly disputed questions of fact.
In course of hearing, the petitioner, who was at times appearing in person, and his counsel made submission to the effect that the petitioner with
his family stays at Chennai and it is very difficult to maintain himself as he had been transferred to Kerala. It has been further submitted that other
persons employed under the respondents belonging to Kerala were willing to go back to Kerala and therefore the petitioner can be re-posted to
Chennai.
In view of these subsequent events and keeping in view the submissions made, while not interfering with the original order of transfer, it is
observed that it would be open to the petitioner to make a fresh representation and if such representation is made, the same should be considered
sympathetically by the respondents. If a representation is made within fifteen days, the same should be considered within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the representation.
The fact that allegations and counter allegations have been made in the writ petition should not be held against the petitioner and such application
for re-transfer should be considered on its own merits. It has to be remembered that even though transfer is a normal incident of service, transfer of
persons, particularly persons in the lower grade of pay, to an outside State results in much inconvenience to such transferred employee and his
family members, thus disrupting the mental equilibrium of an employee. As an ideal employer, it is the duty of the employer to maintain a humane
facade. Every representation or even an allegation of an employee cannot be treated as affront by a person in authority. Every employer while
having the right to transfer its employees as per its rules and regulations to any place, such employer is required to keep in view as far as possible
the pros and cons of such transfer so far as the employee is concerned.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observation without interfering with the
order of transfer.