VINOD SAINI vs BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. & ORS.

SUNIL GAUR , J.

Office Order of 5th May, 2018 (Annexure P-5) transfers petitioner from Noida to Chennai. Petitioner is Deputy Engineer with first respondent in

Noida for last about ten years and vide Representation of 10th May, 2018 (Annexure P-6) petitioner had sought revocation of his transfer.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order is in contravention of Transfer Policy (Annexure P-7) and there is no response to

petitioner’s Representation (Annexure P-6).

Learned counsel for First Respondent submits that petitioner’s transfer is due to immediate requirement of man power for the projects of PSSR in

the Southern Region. To submit so, copy of the Communication dated 17th April, 2018 of First Respondent has been handed over to the Court along

with another Communication of 27th April, 2018 to show that petitioner’s transfer has the approval of not only the Unit’s head but even of the

higher ups also.

The submission of petitioner’s counsel is that petitioner is President of Federation of All India BHEL Engineering Officers Association and on

13th February, 2018, a Protest Note (Annexure P-1) was sent by petitioner to Director (HR) of First Respondent condemning the act of threatening

Secretary General of the Association and petitioner had also made Representation of 21st March, 2018 (Annexure P-2) highlighting the anomaly in the

Grade and Wage revision, which has annoyed the First Respondent, resulting in the impugned transfer order.

Both the sides have been heard and they have placed reliance upon decisions in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others. Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR

1991 SC 532; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Kashmir Singh and Anr. etc. etc. , (2010) 13 SCC 306 and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation

Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 574. Impugned order, transfer policy, material on record and decisions cited have been perused and

thereupon, it becomes evident that the challenge to transfer of an employee can be sustained, if the impugned transfer is vitiated by mala fides or in

violation of any statutory provision.

In the instant case, the petitioner’s transfer is on account of immediate requirement of man power for the projects in the Southern Region. It is so

evident from the aforesaid Communications of 17th April, 2018 and 27th April, 2018 respectively. This Court is of the considered opinion that the

transfer of petitioner is not vitiated by any mala fides nor is in contravention of the transfer policy.

In such a situation, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order. As such, this petition and the application are accordingly dismissed.