JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Respondent corporation, having failed to defend its action of terminating petitioner, while he was posted at Mathura, right upto the Apex Court, has passed the orders impugned, requiring petitioner to report at Vadodara, Gujarat, for being reinstated in service and to furnish details of his activity while he remained out of employment, failing which a presumption would be raised that he was gainfully employed. Petitioner asserts that piqued at having lost legal battle upto the Apex Court, the employer is devising newer methods of harassment and victimization, by requiring petitioner to report for reinstatement at a distance of a thousand kilometers, which in the facts and circumstances suffers from the vice of malice in law and in fact. 2. Facts in brief, which give cause for filing of the present writ petition, are that petitioner was initially appointed as Electrician Grade-III with the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) vide order dated 21.4.1986. Admittedly, petitioner joined on the post on 25.9.1986. He was terminated from service vide modal standing order dated 26.4.1989, treating him to be on probation. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 8502 of 1989. This Court speaking through the judgment dated 1.12.2006 opined that as the maximum period permissible under the standing orders for an employee to be kept on probation had already expired, as such, he would be deemed to be confirmed in the employment. Since no procedure was followed before terminating the service of petitioner, as such, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 26.4.1989, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition was quashed. Liberty, however, was granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order if they so desire, in accordance with law. The judgment dated 1.12.2006 was challenged by the respondent corporation by filing Special Appeal No. 19 of 2007. The appeal by an elaborate order was dismissed on 17.9.2014. Liberty, however, was granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order if they so desire, in accordance with law. The judgment dated 1.12.2006 was challenged by the respondent corporation by filing Special Appeal No. 19 of 2007. The appeal by an elaborate order was dismissed on 17.9.2014. Operative portion of the order passed in Special Appeal No. 19 of 2007 is reproduced : “As such, we are of the opinion that even though the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for treating the writ petitioner as a permanent employee may be different from one which have been given hereinabove, but in the facts of the present case, the writ petitioner could not be treated as a probationer after having put in more than two years of service, and his service could not have been terminated without assigning any reasons, treating him to be a probationer, as has been done by the order dated 26.4.1989. As we have already held, in the facts of the present case and in terms of the model Standing Orders, the writ petitioner had automatically been confirmed, and would be treated as permanent workman on the completion of three months service in the year 1986 itself and thus, the termination simplicitor, treating the writ petitioner to be a probationer, vide order dated 26.4.1989 has rightly been quashed by the learned Single Judge, which does not call for interference in this appeal. The special appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs." 3. Petitioner also preferred a Special Appeal No. 508 of 2007 against the judgment of learned Single Judge to the extent the relief of back wages was not considered, and liberty was granted to the employer to proceed afresh against the employee. The special appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs." 3. Petitioner also preferred a Special Appeal No. 508 of 2007 against the judgment of learned Single Judge to the extent the relief of back wages was not considered, and liberty was granted to the employer to proceed afresh against the employee. The special appeal of the petitioner was disposed of with following observations vide order dated 17.9.2014 : “As regards the first prayer, we are of the opinion that since, while dismissing the Special Appeal No. 19 of 2007, we have held that the termination simplicitor, in the case of the writ petitioner, was not justified in law as by virtue of provisions of the model Standing Orders, the writ petitioner had been treated as a permanent workman on completion of three months of probation and he can be terminated only in accordance with law i.e. after giving opportunity and following the Rules prescribed for termination of a permanent employee, we are of the opinion that liberty granted to the Corporation for passing fresh orders in accordance with law is justified and does not call for any interference. As regards the other prayer for grant of full back wages to the appellant, we are of the opinion that once the termination order has been quashed, the consequences will follow and the appellant would be entitled to all such benefits, for which he may be entitled to, in accordance with law. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.” 4. The judgment and order dated 17.9.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 19 of 2007 was then carried in Special Leave to Appeal by the respondent corporation, which came to be dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.4.2015 by following orders : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No ground for interference is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitioners are dismissed.” 5. It is, therefore, clear that with dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the challenge laid by the petitioner to the order of termination is sustained. Petitioner, consequently, submits that he is entitled to be reinstated and all benefits, as have been found payable to the petitioner, are liable to be provided to him. 6. It is, therefore, clear that with dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the challenge laid by the petitioner to the order of termination is sustained. Petitioner, consequently, submits that he is entitled to be reinstated and all benefits, as have been found payable to the petitioner, are liable to be provided to him. 6. Petitioner armed with the orders of the Court approached the respondents corporation for permitting him to join. It is at this stage that the first order under challenge came to be passed by the General Manager (HRD, MS & Training), acknowledging the orders passed by this Court, as affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Petitioner, however, has been reinstated and has been asked to report for duty before an officer posted as Deputy General Manager at Koyali, Vadodara in Gujarat on or before 1.7.2015. It has also been provided that before joining petitioner is to undergo medical examination at Mathura Refinery Hospital at Mathura and his reinstatement in service would be treated from the date he reports for duty at Vadodara in Gujarat. By the subsequent letter dated 7.7.2015, the respondent corporation has called upon the petitioner to submit details of his working during the period he remained out of employment. It is also observed that in case petitioner was not employed by the respondent corporation, it would be assumed that he indulged in some form of employment or activities for his livelihood and the corporation also has some reports. It would be appropriate to reproduce the contents of the letter dated 7.7.2015 : “This refers to your letters dated 12.6.2015 and 29.6.2015. Your requirement is by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and in terms of your letter of appointment dated 21.4.1986 you are liable to serve at any place in India to which you are posted. Based on the administrative exigencies and the requirements of the Corporation, you have been posted on reinstatement at the installation of the Pipelines Division in the Wester Region at Koyali, Gujarat w.e.f. 1.7.2015. Since you were posted at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh at the time of the termination of your service, in accordance with the Corporation’s practice governing transfers, you were given 30 days to join service at Koyali in terms of letter No. PL/HR/IR/48 dated 2.6.2015. Since you were posted at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh at the time of the termination of your service, in accordance with the Corporation’s practice governing transfers, you were given 30 days to join service at Koyali in terms of letter No. PL/HR/IR/48 dated 2.6.2015. You may contract the Chief Operation Manager, Northern Region Pipelines Division at Mathura for the requisition of transportation facility for transport of your personal belongings from Mathura to Koyali if you are re-locating with your family. As a special case, the Chief Operation Manager, Northern Region Pipelines at Mathura will also upon request to him arrange 2nd Class AC rail tickets for your travel (and the travel of any dependant family members accompanying you) from Mathura to Koyali. In the circumstances, the date for you to report for duty at Koyali is also extended to July 27, 2015. On you reporting for and attending duty at Koyali, as a special case, you will also be provided with any other benefit available on transfer. It may also be clarified that while your reinstatement was with immediate effect in terms of letter No. PL/HR/IR/48 dated 2.6.2015, you were given 30 days time to report for duty at Koyali, and were clearly informed that you will be considered to have rejoined duty on reinstatement only when you report for duty at Koyali. Should you fail to report for duty at Koyali as directed, you will be understood to be in disobedience of the order conveyed to you by letter dated 2.6.2015 and this letter. You will appreciate that you were not employed with the Corporation between April, 1989 and March, 1999 and between July, 2003 to June, 2015. The corporation would, therefore, like to have full disclosure of your activities during this period, as also would like to have a report on your current medical status. You are, therefore, requested to comply with Conditions 1 and 2 set out in the letter dated 2.6.2015. These requirements may be regarded as orders or instructions given by your superior. It is assumed that during the period that your were not employed by the Corporation you had indulged in some form of employment or activity for your livelihood, and the Corporation has some reports with respect thereto. These requirements may be regarded as orders or instructions given by your superior. It is assumed that during the period that your were not employed by the Corporation you had indulged in some form of employment or activity for your livelihood, and the Corporation has some reports with respect thereto. It is, therefore, necessary that you give clear particulars/details of your past employment and activities during the intervening period(s) in the prescribed Declaration Format with a view both, to update the Corporation’s records in relation to your service, and to determine the arrears of pay and financial benefits payable consequent upon your reinstatement. Mere bald and general declarations are unacceptable. Please furnish the required particulars in the prescribed Declaration Format on the clear understanding that any information given therein which is false or misleading or conceals relevant facts will be attended by legal and disciplinary consequences.” 7. Sri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondent corporation smacks of malice in law and fact apparent on face of the record, inasmuch as all endeavours are being made to harass and victimize the petitioner by the respondents, after their action has not found favour with the Court. It is submitted that at the time petitioner was terminated, he was employed at Pipelines Division of Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura, and the order of termination was passed against him at Mathura. It is further submitted that once the order of termination has been set aside, petitioner ought to have been allowed reinstatement at the same place, particularly as the Pipelines Division of the corporation at Mathura continues to exist and there is absolutely no justification for requiring the petitioner to report for duty to an officer situated thousands of kilometre away, for the purposes. It is also stated that the work which was being performed by the petitioner continues to remain available. Submission is that nature of queries, which are being raised by the corporation, also show utter annoyance on part of the corporation merely because action of respondent corporation has not found favour with the Court. Submission also is that being an agency and instrumentality of the state, the corporation and its officers are expected to rise above petty considerations so as to harass petitioner. Submission also is that being an agency and instrumentality of the state, the corporation and its officers are expected to rise above petty considerations so as to harass petitioner. Petitioner further submits that although a period of nearly ten months have expired, but till date not a single penny has been paid by the corporation and in the facts and circumstances, their action clearly amounts to showing of utter disrespect to the orders of the Court. Petitioner also submits that he ought to have been allowed joining at Mathura, as he was terminated from the said place, and if he was reinstated at Mathura and paid his back wages in terms of the Court’s order, thereafter only petitioner could have been transferred to any other place, but the course adopted, otherwise by the respondent corporation, clearly falls short of the reasonable act on part of the state instrumentality. 8. Petition is opposed by Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent corporation, who submits that petitioner is holder of transferable post and it is the sweet will of employer to put him to work for the purposes of reinstatement at any part of the country and petitioner cannot insist upon joining at Mathura. It is also pointed out that for such travelling 2nd Class AC train tickets would be admissible to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that it is within the right of the corporation to seek details regarding activity of the petitioner, which he may have undertaken while petitioner remained out of service and petitioner has no right to object to it. 9. I have learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 10. Record of the petition shows that petitioner was appointed to a class III post, as Electrician Grade-III, in the respondent corporation. It seems that without holding any departmental proceedings, the respondent corporation proceeded to terminate his services on 26.4.1989, treating him to be on probation. The action of respondent corporation was challenged by filing a writ petition, which was allowed, and the order of termination has been set aside. Intra Court appeals preferred both by the petitioner and the respondent corporation stands decided with the order of termination dated 26.4.1989 quashed, and petitioner entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits. The action of respondent corporation was challenged by filing a writ petition, which was allowed, and the order of termination has been set aside. Intra Court appeals preferred both by the petitioner and the respondent corporation stands decided with the order of termination dated 26.4.1989 quashed, and petitioner entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits. The order passed in special appeal, as extracted above, has attained finality with dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.4.2015. Once that be so, as a natural consequence, petitioner is entitled to have been put back in service, and paid back wages, with liberty reserved to the employer to take such fresh proceeding, in accordance with law, treating the petitioner to be a permanent employee. The position to this extent is beyond any doubt. 11. Respondent corporation, however, has passed order impugned dated 2.6.2015, granting reinstatement to petitioner in salary Grade-V as Senior Engineer Assistant (Electrical). It would be appropriate to reproduce the order dated 2.6.2015 : “Further to our letter No. PL/HR/IR/48, dated 6.5.2015, this refers to the above mentioned order of Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the order dated 1.12.2016 passed by Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and order dated 17.9.2014 passed by Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. In compliance with aforesaid orders, you are hereby reinstated in services of Corporation as Sr. Engineering Assistant (Electrical), in Salary Grad-V. You are advised to report for duty to Shri S.D. Kamewad, DGM, WRPL, Koyali, Gujarat on or before 1.7.2015. Before joining: 1. You have to undergo medical examination at the following address: Mathura Refinery Hospital Mathura Refinery Nagar Mathura-281006 Contact Person: Chief Medical Officer (Contact No. : 0565-2416062) 2. You have to provide relevant information in the attached Declaration Form, which shall facilitate calculation of back wages and antecedent verification. This declaration would be in additional to and not in substitution of the Declaration and information submitted by you and for and/or at the time of your initial appointment. 3. You will be treated as reinstated in service from the date you report for duty at WRPL, Koyali, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, Vadodara-391320. The above is issued without prejudice to the right of the Corporation to take any action action against you in accordance with the liberty provided in the aforesaid orders.” 12. 3. You will be treated as reinstated in service from the date you report for duty at WRPL, Koyali, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, Vadodara-391320. The above is issued without prejudice to the right of the Corporation to take any action action against you in accordance with the liberty provided in the aforesaid orders.” 12. The order further records that reinstatement in service would be treated from the date petitioner reports for duty at Vadodara before the officer concerned. There is absolutely no justification brought on record of this petition as to why the corporation was compelled to require petitioner to report for duty at Vadodara. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation does not dispute the fact that the Pipelines Division at Matura, in which petitioner was appointed, continues to exist at Mathura. 13. It may further be noticed that although petitioner is holder of a transferable post, but such a transfer cannot be made a condition precedent for permitting petitioner to be reinstated. In the absence of any material brought on record to justify insistence on part of the corporation for petitioner’s reporting at Vadodara, this Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that such a condition is imposed by the corporation only on account of annoyance, which the officers felt due to their action having not found favour with the Court. It is also apparent from the record that apart from putting a condition of reporting at Vadodara, respondents further required the petitioner to furnish details of activities which the petitioner may have undertaken during the period he had remained out of employment. Record further shows that after the order impugned dated 2.6.2015 was passed, petitioner represented before the respondents stating that all formalities in respect of his joining has already been completed and he also submitted a declaration specified that he was not employed anywhere else. Relevant portion of the petitioner’s letter dated 12.6.2015, dealing with three issues specified in the order dated 2.6.2015, reads as under : “You have also asked me to complete some formalities before joining such as to undergo the medical, filling up the declaration for etc. My answer w.r.t. same is given below. Regarding point No. 1—I don’t understand why I am being asked for to undergo the medical examination at this stage. This formality is required for the newly appointed person but I am not a new appointee. My answer w.r.t. same is given below. Regarding point No. 1—I don’t understand why I am being asked for to undergo the medical examination at this stage. This formality is required for the newly appointed person but I am not a new appointee. This is not a fresh appointment; this is reinstatement which means to re-unite the service from the date I was terminated. Therefore, I don’t see any relevance/legitimacy with the issue in question. You may note when I worked from June/July 1999 to July, 2003 at SMPL termination at Mathura under the effect of interim order of High Court Allahabad, I was not asked for the same. Regarding point No. 2—You have enclosed some forms which are to be filled up and signed and submitted to you before joining. Again my answer is the same as replied above. I have completed all these formalities at the time of my joining in May, 1986. Asking about the details of any employment in past period during pendency of litigation, I have no hesitation to declare that I was unemployed during these years except for from June/July 199 to July, 2003 where I had been in Indian Oil at SMPL Mathura terminal (under the effect of interim order of High Court, Allahabad). You are also asking me to have it signed by the two witnesses which is not possible for me at this stage. Moreover, I have no hesitation in declaring that I was by and large at my resident Mathura. Similarly, when I worked from June/July, 1999 to July, 2003 at SMPL terminal at Mathura under the effect of interim order of High Court, Allahabad, I was not asked for the same. Therefore, it will not be possible for me to complete these formalities as asked by you. Regarding point No. 3 “you will be treated as reinstated in the service from the date you report for duty at WRPL, Koyali, PO-Jawahar Nagar, Vododara-391320” The above lines mentioned in your letter do not carry the true meaning of reinstatement. I must be treated reinstated in the service from the date of my termination i.e. 26.4.1989 considering me notionally to be in the service with due consideration of my promotions, seniority and other benefits for which I may be entitled to with retrospective effect. I must be treated reinstated in the service from the date of my termination i.e. 26.4.1989 considering me notionally to be in the service with due consideration of my promotions, seniority and other benefits for which I may be entitled to with retrospective effect. Further, once again I request you to issue the directives following the verdict of High Court and Supreme Court in true sense and spirit.” 14. Aforesaid letter of petitioner followed with another reminder dated 29.6.2015, in which petitioner pressed his claim for payment of back wages as well as for him to be permitted to resume his duties at the place where he was in employment. It is at this stage that subsequent letter dated 7.7.2015 has been issued to the petitioner, contents whereof has already been extracted above. The facts which have been brought on record of the writ petition clearly exposes an act on part of the corporation to circumvent the orders passed by this Court in its true letter and spirit. There was absolutely no justification for the respondents to have insisted upon petitioner’s reporting at Vadodara when petitioner admittedly was never transferred during his continuance in service. The condition precedent imposed by the corporation for petitioner to report for duty at Vadodara, therefore, cannot be held to be bona fide. The respondent corporation, in such circumstances, does not appear to have acted in a fair and just manner. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, 2009 (2) SCC 592 , has been pleased to hold that where transfer order was passed on non existent material it not only suffers from non application of mind, but also suffers from malice in law. Para 16 of the judgment is reproduced : “16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law.” 16. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 2.6.2015 insofar as it requires the petitioner to report at Vadodara, for his reinstatement to be effective from such date of reporting cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 2.6.2015 insofar as it requires the petitioner to report at Vadodara, for his reinstatement to be effective from such date of reporting cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall report for joining at Mathura, within a period of two weeks from today, and he shall be reinstated in service at Mathura, by the respondent corporation. 17. It goes without saying that petitioner will be entitled to back wages/benefits, to which he has been held entitled under the orders of this Court, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, forthwith. Respondents, however, shall have liberty to act in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Special Appeal. 18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the action of respondent corporation has been found to be lacking in bona fide, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon the respondent corporation. ———————