JUDGMENT 1. The appellant Coal Mines Officers Association of India being aggrieved by the order dated 28-5-2001, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 570/2001, 571/2001, 572/2001 and 573/2001, has filed this appeal under Section 10 of Letters Patent. 2. The respondent No. 1 Coal India Limited is a Government Company and is having 8 subsidiary companies namely (1) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad, (2) Central Mining Planning & Design Institute Ltd., Ranchi, (3) Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi, (4) Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Sanctoria, (5) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur, (6) Northern Coalfields Ltd., Singrauli, (7) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur, and (8) Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur. Bharatiya Koyala Adhikari Sangh filed three petitions, while the appellant Coal Mines Officers Association of India, filed W.P. No. 573/2001. The common grievance of all the writ petitioners was that the order directing transfers of as many as 595 high ranking officers of respondent No. 1 was not only contrary to the said norms, but was even contrary to the transfer policy prepared and adopted by the respondent No. 1. The respondents in writ petition submitted before the Court that the transfers were in accordance with law and did not violative the transfer policy. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and going through the entire records found that neither the mala fides could be attributed against the respondents nor the order could be held to be violative of the transfer policy. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the petitions by the common order dated 28-5-2001, therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. Shri R. Mukhopadhyaya, President of the petitioner-Association has submitted before us that wholesale transfers of as many as 595 high ranking officers were bad and were contrary to the policy made and adopted by the respondents. He has submitted that the transfer orders show absolute non-application of mind, because certain persons who have died long back and certain persons who are suffering with serious ailment have also been transferred. According to him, the transfers could not be effected in a manner like this and transfers deserve to be quashed. 4. Shri P.S. Nair, learned Sr. Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the transfers were in accordance with the transfer policy and if some lapses have been committed in execution of the transfer policy, then, such small lapses on the part of the respondents would not make the transfers bad. 4. Shri P.S. Nair, learned Sr. Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the transfers were in accordance with the transfer policy and if some lapses have been committed in execution of the transfer policy, then, such small lapses on the part of the respondents would not make the transfers bad. According to him, about 30,000 Officers are working with the respondent No. 1 and if for shortage of information or non-feeding of proper information, some wrong orders have been passed, it would not amount to mala fide exercise of the powers. He submits that immediately after learning about issuance of wrong orders, the same have been remedied and the respondents are ready and willing to consider the representations of all such officers who are aggrieved by the transfers. He has further submitted that barring 14 persons, almost every officer has joined at the place of transfer and as the transfer of an individual is a personal cause of action to that individual officer, the association cannot challenge the transfers. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. For proper appreciation of the case, it would be necessary to sec the different policy decisions taken by the respondent. In the meeting of C.M.D. held on 3rd March, 2001. The transfer policy as proposed and approved was as under:-- "4.1. Transfer Policy.-- Director (P & IR) explained that as per the existing transfer policy of 1994, executives of M1, M2 and M3 grades are required to be transferred inter-company on completion of 10 years stay in a company. To avoid large scale transfer 20% of executives satisfying the above criteria are being transferred from one company to another every year. However, over the years a large number of executives who have completed 20 years and above in M1, M2 and M3 grades and who have more than 2 years to retire are still working in the companies. After discussion it was decided that in the first phase those executives in M1, M2 and M3 grades who have completed 22 years or more service in one company and having more than 2 years to retire will be transferred to other subsidiaries. This will be subject to the conditions mentioned in the transfer policy." 6. In the 3rd meeting held on 1st April, 2001, the minutes of the first CM.D.'s meet were considered. This will be subject to the conditions mentioned in the transfer policy." 6. In the 3rd meeting held on 1st April, 2001, the minutes of the first CM.D.'s meet were considered. In the meeting held on 1-4-2001, the policy was amended a little and the period of 22 years stay as provided in the meeting of 3rd March, 2001, was reduced to 20years. The resolution reads as follows:-- "5-e. In the earlier CM.D.'s Meet, it was decided that executives of Ml, M2 and M3 grades staying in a particular company for more than 22 years will be transferred intercompany. It was decided to revise the criteria of period of stay in a company from 22 years to 20 years." 7. Consequent upon the decision taken in the said meeting, on 5-4-2001 the Director (P & IR) issued following order:-- 2 "In terms of the decision of 1st CM.D.s' meet held on 1-3-2001 and subsequent decision of 3rd CM.D.s' meet held on 4-4-2001 in connection with the transfer of executives of M1, M2 and M3 grades in different disciplines, the following norms is being adopted in effecting the transfer of executives: (1) The Officers who have completed 20 years of service in the company. (2) Officers of WCL, SECL, MCL and NCL will be transferred to BCCL, ECL and CCL. The vacancy so caused in these four subsidiaries will be filled up by transferring executives from BCCL, ECL and CCL based on their station seniority and the remaining executives of DCCL, ECL and CCL will be rotated within these three subsidiaries. (3) The following categories of executives will be exempted from transfer this year: (i) Those who have less than two years to retire as on 31-3-2001. (ii) Projects of more than 100 crores belonging to Mining & Excavation Disciplines. (iii) World Bank Projects belonging to Mining & Excv. (iv) Long wall and new Technology belonging to Mining and E & M disciplines. (v) R & R Executives. (vi) Medical Officers of Ml, M2 and M3 grades. (4) CMPDI Executives. The executives posted in CMPDIL are performing specialised nature of jobs and most of them cannot be gainfully utilised in producing companies. To the extent possible they will be re-deployed, transferred within CMPDIL. Those whose services can be utilised in other subsidiaries will be transferred." 8. (vi) Medical Officers of Ml, M2 and M3 grades. (4) CMPDI Executives. The executives posted in CMPDIL are performing specialised nature of jobs and most of them cannot be gainfully utilised in producing companies. To the extent possible they will be re-deployed, transferred within CMPDIL. Those whose services can be utilised in other subsidiaries will be transferred." 8. On 9-7-2001 when the matter came-up for hearing this Court passed the following order: "In view of the averments made in the appeal and the details given at Page No. 16 of the appeal wherein it is shown that two persons namely Shri B.B. Sharma (Mining) ECL and Shri A.K. Singh (Mining) SECL were already dead and further that Shri O.K. Prasad (Mining) WCL and Shri Gopal Khatri (E & M) SECL are suffering from Blood Cancer, Shri J.P. Singh (Mining) BCCL and Shri R.V. Jog (Civil) WCL are suffering from paralysis, and Shri Y.R. Kotaih (E & M) WCL met with an accident whose one eye has been completely damaged and other one is under treatment; all these persons have been transferred; and further in view of the tabular-Annexure A-12 (at page 50), wherein the appellant has submitted the information, prima facie we consider it would be just and proper that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to file his affidavit so also the Officer-in-Charge of the case who fifed the return/reply to the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, shall also file his affidavit. The respondents may also consider the cases of the officers/employees who have made representations and the cases of whose names have been mentioned in this L.P.A. as well regarding validity and propriety or otherwise. 9. In accordance with the directions of this Court Shri N.K. Sharma, Chairman, Coal India Ltd., has filed his own affidavit. I.N. Shrivastava, General Manager, has also filed his affidavit. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed his strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Workers' Union Vs. 9. In accordance with the directions of this Court Shri N.K. Sharma, Chairman, Coal India Ltd., has filed his own affidavit. I.N. Shrivastava, General Manager, has also filed his affidavit. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed his strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Workers' Union Vs. T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others, reported in (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 469, to contend that in a case of termination of service of an employee, the association would not be entitled to bring the list before the Court; on the ground of parity, he submits that in a case of transfer as the cause of action is personal to each transferred officer, the association is not entitled to bring action in the Court. 11. From the records it appears that some of the officers who are suffering with ailments have been transferred and the list contains the names of those officers who have already expired. According to us, inclusion of the names of certain deceased officers would not adversely affect the powers exercised by the respondents. Where 30,000 officers are working with the respondents, these small lapses would not show that there is non-application of mind. It is not the case of the appellant that barring these two officers, number of others had expired and without taking into consideration the death of such officers, indiscreet orders were passed. In our opinion, this ground cannot give a dent to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. For some of the officers, it is contended that they arc suffering with serious ailments, who have been transferred without taking into consideration their physical condition. It was not the case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that these persons had made representations and their representations were rejected, despite taking note of serious ailments suffered by these persons. 12. Shri P.S. Nair, learned Sr. Counsel, for respondents, has fairly submitted before us that if any officer is aggrieved by his transfer, then, he may make a representation to the authority and the same shall be considered by the said authority in accordance with law. 13. In our opinion, the offer made by Shri P.S. Nair is fair and if any officer is aggrieved by his transfer, then, he must make a representation to the authority for consideration of his representation. 14. 13. In our opinion, the offer made by Shri P.S. Nair is fair and if any officer is aggrieved by his transfer, then, he must make a representation to the authority for consideration of his representation. 14. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, we are unable to hold that wholesale transfers have been made. About 600 transfers from amongst 30,000 officers would be hardly 2%. These transfers cannot be said to be wholesale transfers. 15. On the merits, we are unable to hold that the respondents/authority was unjustified in framing the policy. It cannot be said that the authority acted illegally in reducing the period of stay from 22 years to 20 years. In the meetings of CM.D.s' it was discussed and approved by them that period of 22 years stay should be reduced to 20 years. An employee or an officer working with the employer cannot say that he is entitled to stay at a particular place so long as he does not retire. An employee or an officer also cannot say that he should be kept at a particular place for a particular period. The transfers are consequence of the service. If somebody is transferred from one place to another, then, the Court would be entitled to interfere with the order of transfer if the order is shown to be contrary to the policy or is result of mala fides or has been issued to adjust one man in place of another. In the present case, the appellant does not say that the transfers are result of mala fides or have been made to adjust one man in place of another. The objection of the appellant in fact is that the transfers are contrary to the policy and are wholesale in nature. In our opinion, the transfers cannot be condemned on these two grounds. 16. On the merits, we are unable to hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge call for any interference. 17. In view of the offer made by Shri P.S. Nair, it is hereby directed that if any person is aggrieved by his transfer, then, he shall be at liberty to make a representation to the authority within three weeks from today and the respondent/authority shall be obliged to consider the said representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said representation. It is expected of the authorities that without prejudice to anything they shall decide the representations in accordance with law. 18. Mr. R. Mukhopadhyaya has also made a submission that he has filed the writ petition in his capacity of the President of the association, therefore, he is likely to be victimised. 19. Shri Nair, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondents had made a categorical submission in the Open Court that the petitioner was free to file writ petition and filing of writ petition and his action in filing the writ petition on behalf of association, would not create any complications and the apprehension of Mr. R. Mukhopadhyaya is un-founded. 20. We expect that the authority would be honest to its orders and would not victimise Mr. R. Mukhopadhyaya. 21. The appeal is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. 22. Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.