Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 986 (JHR)

R. P. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd.

2002-09-09

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing office order No. PERS(S)/94-6135 dated 22.7.1994 whereby they have been transferred from Vigilance Department to Security Department of the respondent Steel Authority of India Ltd. The grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondent transferring the petitioners from Vigilance Department to Security Department without adopting any policy decision or guidelines for such transfer is arbitrary, illegal and improper. 3. Mr. A.R. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that transfer of the employees of an establishment from one cadre to another cadre in absence of any service condition and thereby changing the cadre is not permissible in law. It is further contended that the respondents have adopted a pick and choose method in transferring the petitioners from one cadre to another cadre. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Ganesh Chandra Jha v. S.R. Prasad and Ors., 1992 (1) PLJR 165 and a decision reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 89. 4. Firstly I would like to discuss the ratio decided in the case of Ganesh Chandra Jha (supra). In that case the petitioners who were working in the Instruction and Progress Department were directed to be transferred and posted to the Inspection Wing of Research and Control Regulatory Department and some of the petitioners were transferred from Inspection and Progress Department to Internal Audit Department. Learned Single Judge found that by virtue of the aforesaid transfer the petitioners not only would loose their lien but also loose their seniority and their chances of promotion in the executive grade. Learned Judge further found that the respondents without evolving a policy decision reserving the seniority and future promotion have acted arbitrarily by transferring the petitioners from one cadre to another cadre. In such a situation the learned Judge held that such transfers are not permissible in law. 5. In the instant case respondents stand in the counter-affidavit is that under terms and conditions of services of the petitioners there is a specific provision of transfer of the employees from one department to another department in the same establishment. In such a situation the learned Judge held that such transfers are not permissible in law. 5. In the instant case respondents stand in the counter-affidavit is that under terms and conditions of services of the petitioners there is a specific provision of transfer of the employees from one department to another department in the same establishment. Clause 35 of the service conditions have been mentioned in the affidavit which is reproduced hereinbelow : "Clause 35 Transfer--Any workman shall be liable to be transferred from the work to any establishment of the Company, either at Bokaro Steel City or outside and shall also be liable to be transferred from one Department to. another or from one job to another. Such transferred workman will be entitled to such allowances and other amenities which may be applicable to other workmen in similar jobs where the workman concerned is transferred." It is further stated that considering the need of extra manpower in Security Department the respondents further case is that at the initial period of establishment of the respondent Company Vigilance, Intelligence and Fire Sections were all under the Security Department and in due course of time the aforesaid sections have been separated with a view to have smooth functioning of these Departments. Besides the above it has clearly been stipulated in the transfer order that "Their L.O.P. (Line of Promotion) as well as designation will however, remain unchanged and it will be with Vigilance Department." 6. It is therefore, clear that neither the cadre has been changed nor the seniority and future promotion of the petitioners have been effected by virtue of the impugned order of transfer from Vigilance Department to Security Department. In my opinion, therefore, the decision upon which the petitioners put reliance are not applicable in the case of the present case. The impugned order of transfer can not be considered to be illegal, arbitrary, or in violation of service condition of the petitioners. 7. For the aforesaid reason I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.