JUDGMENT S. K. MISHRA, J — In these writ applications two brothers, who were given employment in the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited because of acquisition of their land, challenge their order of transfer dated 15.09.2009. 2.In both the cases, the claims of the petitioners are identical. Their lands situated at Village Chharia under Lakhanpur Tahasil of Jharsuguda district were acquired by the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, hereinafter referred as “M.C.L.”, for brevity. Being displaced persons under the rehabilitation scheme of the Government of Orissa, Revenue and Excise Department, the petitioners were appointed under the Western Coalfields Limited and after creation of the M.C.L. their services were placed under the present opposite parties. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that they have as yet not received the compensation for the lands acquired by the opposite parties and the matter is subjudice before this court. As per the guidelines, the opposite parties have also not provided with suitable homestead land measuring Ac.0.10 decimals to construct a house though more than two decades have elapsed. 3.The villagers of the petitioners’ village were agitating against the company for non-providing suitable homestead lands as assured by it at the time of acquisition of their lands and houses for the purpose of Coal Mines. Such agitation was continued for more than two decades, but the opposite parties are not taking any decision on the same. It is further pleaded by them that the services of the petitioners were terminated on 28.12.2006 on the ground that they have not vacated their houses in the aforesaid area, but later on, on 05.01.2007, such termination orders were withdrawn. It is further contended that at present there are twenty sanctioned and vacant posts lying with the M.C.L. and in spite of such vacant posts, the petitioners have been transferred to Northern Coalfields Limited Singrauli and CMPDIL, Ranchi. It is submitted by the petitioners that such transfer of the petitioners from one company to another is violative of Clause 21.4 of the Standing Orders of the Company and, therefore, the same should be quashed. 4.The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit in this case, inter alia, pleading that the petitioners have already been relieved on 17.09.2009, but they have suppressed this fact in the writ application. 4.The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit in this case, inter alia, pleading that the petitioners have already been relieved on 17.09.2009, but they have suppressed this fact in the writ application. It is further pleaded that in the appointment letter dated 16.06.1989 it is clearly mentioned that the petitioners can be transferred to any other establishment of the SECL (now MCL) or any other establishment/Colliery of Coal India Limited in any part of India. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the petitioners were appointed as Badali workers, category-1, because of acquisition of their lands for mining purpose. However, the pleadings are silent regarding payment of compensation to the petitioners The opposite parties however claim that the petitioners have been provided with Ac.0.10 decs. of land each for constructing their own houses. The specific plea of the opposite parties is that the petitioners, who have been appointed under the Rehabilitation Scheme did not vacate their houses as well as instigated the other villagers of Chharia to agitate against the M.C.L., to obstruct the mining operations. On various occasions, the petitioners were warned and ultimately their services were terminated, because they violated the terms and conditions of the appointment order. However, the company reinstated the petitioners on 05.01.2007 after the petitioners gave undertaking that they would comply with the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. It is further pleaded that in spite of the liberal attitude of the MCL by reinstating the petitioners, the petitioners continued to remain in their houses by subletting the same at village Chharia and continued to instigate the villagers to agitate against the MCL. It is submitted that though the opposite parties have taken a liberal attitude against the petitioner and his brothers, the petitioners continued to violate the conditions mentioned in the appointment order and instigate the villagers to agitate against the MCL. The petitioners have been transferred to MCL on administrative ground. It is pleaded by the opposite parties that Clause 21.4 of the Standing Order has no bearing in this case. Therefore, the opposite parties pray that the writ application be dismissed. 5.The moot question that arises for determination in this case is whether the transfer of the petitioners is in violation of the Standing Order of the governing company and whether, the Standing Orders have any statutory effect. Therefore, the opposite parties pray that the writ application be dismissed. 5.The moot question that arises for determination in this case is whether the transfer of the petitioners is in violation of the Standing Order of the governing company and whether, the Standing Orders have any statutory effect. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, while admitted that the Standing Orders in respect of M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla, Sambalpur and M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh has statutory effect, contended that there has been no violation of any rules in this case. It is also argued that the terms and conditions of the employment specifically stipulate that the petitioners can be transferred to any other company, colliery and anywhere in India. Therefore, the terms and conditions shall be binding and the transfers cannot be termed as illegal. 6.In Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, 1993 (4) SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an order of transfer is an incident of service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes his representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. Similar view has been taken in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, AIR 2001 SC 1748 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has reiterated that an order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who is issued the order to not have the competence to pass the order. In State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165; the Hon’ble Court Supreme Court has held that a transfer order should not be interfered with as they do not confer any legally enforceable right unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. In State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165; the Hon’ble Court Supreme Court has held that a transfer order should not be interfered with as they do not confer any legally enforceable right unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 7.In applying these principles to the present case, it is seen that the orders have been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and it includes all workmen governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement. Clause 21 of the Standing Orders provide for transfer. Clause 21.1 provides that workmen may be transferred due to the exigencies of work from one station to another-from one coal mine to another or from one establishment/department/section to another, within the same company or same holding company, provided that the pay, grade and other conditions of service including continuity of service of the workmen are not adversely affected by such transfer. It is further provided that if a workman is transferred from one job to another, the job should be of similar nature and such as he is capable of doing and provided further that - (i) Except in case of emergency, minimum notice of two weeks is given of such transfers, and (ii) reasonable joining time is allowed in case of transfers from one station to another. Rule 21.2 provides for payment of equal charges for transporting personal effects of an employee. Rule 21.4 provides for inter-company transfer. We consider it apposite to quote the same. “21.4. Case of inter Company transfer, it should be made in consultation with the trade Unions/workmen concerned.” 8.Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Standing Order that the authorities have the competence to transfer a person from one place to another within the same company or the same holding company, but when it comes to inter company transfer, it should be made in consultation with the trade unions/workmen concerned. It is not disputed in this case that both the petitioners have been transferred from Mahanadi Coalfields Limited to other companies like Northern Coalfields Limited and CMPDIL, Ranchi. It is also not disputed that all the three companies are three separate legal entities and in this case, Clause 21.4 is clearly applicable. It is not disputed in this case that both the petitioners have been transferred from Mahanadi Coalfields Limited to other companies like Northern Coalfields Limited and CMPDIL, Ranchi. It is also not disputed that all the three companies are three separate legal entities and in this case, Clause 21.4 is clearly applicable. 9.It is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the petitioners are creating problem in the smooth mining operation of the company and, therefore, they have been transferred. If the petitioners have indulged in activities against the interest of the company, then it may amount to misconduct and for that reason, the authorities have the competence to initiate appropriate proceedings against them, but transfer on such ground cannot be termed as transfer on administrative exigencies. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the conditions of service at clause 8 of Annexure-B provides that the petitioners are liable to be transferred to any other Colliery/Establishment of MCL in any part of India and, therefore, their transfers are not illegal. We are unable to accept the same because of the fact that such a condition imposed by the authorities cannot over-ride the Standing Orders of the company, which has been issued under the Standing Orders Act. Whenever there is a conflict between the Standing Orders and any terms and conditions entered into between the establishment and the workmen, the Standing Orders shall prevail. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, we come to the conclusion that the transfer orders of both the petitioners, which have been annexed as Annexure-1 issued on 15.09.2009 are bad as it is violative of the express provisions of the Standing Orders. Accordingly, we quash the said orders of transfer dated 15.09.2009. Since the petitioners have been relieved from their posts, the opposite parties shall allow them to join in their previous posts and the petitioners shall, within two months, pay 50% of the arrear wages with continuity of service. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petitions allowed.