Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 735 (HP)

Abhay Shankar Shukla v. SJVN Ltd.

2015-06-20

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer in the respondent-Corporation. He joined at Corporate Office, Shimla as Dy. General Manager (Finance) in the month of April, 2012. He was transferred from Corporate Office Shimla to STPL, Patna, Bihar vide Office order dated 22.4.2015. The respondent Corporation has framed the transfer policy. The following are the objectives of the transfer policy: “OBJECTIVES: 1.1 Transfer Policy has been formulated with the following objectives: a). To provide stability of tenure to an employee at the place of posting for a specified period. b). To bring about transparency and clarity to the employees with respect to their transfers from one project to another or from project to Corporate Office. c). To encourage specialization in a particular field while also making available wider exposure for the growth of all individuals. d). To meet the organizational requirements while accommodating the aspirations of the individual.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. The mode of transfer is laid down at para 4.0 and tenure at 5.0, which read as follows: “4.0 MODE OF TRANSFER: 4.1 Transfer will be effected in the following heads: a) From Corporate Office to Project/plants and Vice-Versa. b) Within the same Project/plant. c) One Project/plant to another project/plant. d) From Non-family Station to Family Station. 5.0 TENURE: 5.1 The normal tenure of posting will be as under for all stations: Executives and Supervisors- 3 years. Workmen- 5 years.” 3. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have worked at the same place for a period of 18.04, 9.11 and 10.7 years, respectively. The explanation given by the respondent-Corporation for retaining the private respondents is that Sh. S.L. Sharma is the senior most officer, who is heading the Finance Department of Corporate Finance Department at Shimla. Sh. Anand Upadhyaya AGM(Finance) is heading the Finance Department of Rampur Hydro Electric Station. Sh. Sanjay Sood, AGM(Finance) is heading the Compilation Section, being the senior most qualified Chartered Accountant. 4. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, submitted at the Bar that the details of the officers who have worked for more than 9-10 years were called. The name of the petitioner was not in the list. However, despite that he has been transferred vide order dated 22.4.2015 to STPL, Bihar. 5. 4. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, submitted at the Bar that the details of the officers who have worked for more than 9-10 years were called. The name of the petitioner was not in the list. However, despite that he has been transferred vide order dated 22.4.2015 to STPL, Bihar. 5. The respondent-Corporation should have transferred the senior most incumbent taking into consideration that the M/S STPL Patna has been formed as a subsidiary company of SJVN Ltd. for construction and generation of 1320 MW thermal power in the State of Bihar. The daughter of the petitioner is studying in 10+2 standard at Shimla. The wife of the petitioner has undergone renal (kidney) transplant in the year 2000. The specialized treatment is not available at Patna. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, submitted that the respondent-Corporation is ready and willing to provide lease property to the petitioner, as per the Circular dated 11.11.2013 at Delhi. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondent-Corporation, as noticed hereinabove, by sending him to Patna and retaining persons with longer period of service at Shimla. 6. Although the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited, however, in the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has retained the incumbents who have worked for more than 9-10 years at same station. The petitioner has merely worked for 3 years at Shimla and has been transferred to STPL, Patna. The action of the respondent-Corporation of transferring the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 dated 22.4.2015, qua the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Corporation to transfer the incumbents on the basis of length of service at a particular place. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.