JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 30/10/2018 (Annex.7) issued by the respondents, whereby, the petitioners have been transferred from Jodhpur to Udaipur. Further relief has been sought that the respondents be restrained from deploying handling contractor and to consider the pooling of the departmental labourers at FSD Jodhpur as per the guidelines. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that petitioners are departmental workers working in the Food Supply Depot ('FSD') of the Food Corporation of India ('FCI') on the post of 'Sardar', 'Mandal' and handling labour and are involved in handling of bags at the said depot. It is indicated that for the purpose of handling operation of the food grain bags, a structure of gang is made, wherein, a group of around 14 persons make up a team and they work in coordination for lifting/shifting of bags at the depot. The head of the gang is 'Sardar', his deputy is 'Mandal' and rest are handling labourers. 3. Submissions have been made that depots of FCI were notified by the Central Government under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 ('the Act, 1970') for prohibiting the employment of contract labours in the godowns and depots of FCI. The depots of FCI situated at Jaipur, Swaimadhopur, Doongapur, Banswara, Jodhpur, Barmer, Bhilwara and Ajmer were notified and, therefore, the departmental workers like the petitioners were engaged. 4. Suo moto cognizance was taken of the newspaper report by Bombay High Court and the same was treated as Public Interest Litigation, wherein, the payment being made to the departmental labourers at FCI was considered and by issuing various directions the matter was decided on 20/11/2015. Pursuant to the directions, notification dated 6/7/2016 under Section 31 of the Act, 1970 was issued exempting the godowns, depots and railheads of FCI from applicability of various notifications issued under Section 10 of the Act, 1970. Pursuant to the said exemption, guidelines dated 6/7/2016 (Annex.6) for implementation of notification was issued. Pursuant thereto, the respondents transferred the departmental labourers working at FSD, Barmer & FSD, Srivijaynagar and they were pooled at FSD, Jodhpur in the year 2016. Pursuant to the said exemption, guidelines dated 6/7/2016 (Annex.6) for implementation of notification was issued. Pursuant thereto, the respondents transferred the departmental labourers working at FSD, Barmer & FSD, Srivijaynagar and they were pooled at FSD, Jodhpur in the year 2016. Whereafter, the present impugned order dated 30.10.2018 (Annex.7) has been passed transferring the petitioners from FSD, Jodhpur to FSD, Udaipur, certain departmental labourers have been transferred from FSD, Udaipur to various other FSDs on their own request. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners from FSD, Jodhpur to FSD, Udaipur is ex-facie contrary to the guidelines (Annex.6) and spirit of the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court. 6. Submissions have been made that on the one hand the respondents have transferred departmental labourers from FSD, Udaipur to FSD, Gandhi Nagar Jaipur and on the other hand the petitioners have been transferred from FSD, Jodhpur to FSD, Udaipur in the name of 'need based pooling' which is ex-facie contradictory. Submissions have been made that the directions of the Bombay High Court and the guidelines cannot be used as empowering the respondents for transferring the departmental labourers from one FSD to another without any cause and/or de hors the guidelines. Submissions have also been made questioning the pooling sought to be effected by the respondents which, it is claimed, is ex-facie incorrect. 7. Further, with reference to the material filed alongwith the reply to the writ petition it was submitted that the respondents have filed incomplete details and have deliberately only produced material qua one FSD i.e. Jodhpur, depriving the petitioners from placing the factual status in relation to other FSDs and indicate the failure on part of the respondents in taking appropriate decision in this regard and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. During the course of submissions, after filing of additional affidavit under the directions of the Court, when note-sheets were supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners and were placed on record, submissions were made that respondents have taken the decision based on two years' data, which is contrary to the guidelines, which provide for taking into consideration three years' data and, therefore, the entire exercise being contrary to the guidelines, the action deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. 9. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Dr. B.M.Bohra vs. State of Rajasthan,1991 1 RajLR 383. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the directions of the Bombay High Court as well as the guidelines framed in this regard. It was pointed out that the respondents have taken a decision to do away with the departmental labourers at FSD, Jodhpur and engage contract labours for the said FSD. The respondents have undertaken assessment in terms of the guidelines and as the FSD, Jodhpur was found to be having comparatively scanty handling operations, it was decided to pool the departmental labourers from FSD, Jodhpur to FSD, Udaipur. 11. Submissions were made that departmental labourers were shifted from FSD, Swaimadhopur to FSD, Udaipur at the time when exercise was undertaken in the year 2016 and, therefore, an option was given to such labourers working at FSD, Udaipur to give option, and based on the option exercised by them they have been shifted to FSD, Gandhinagar, Jaipur, which cannot be objected to by the petitioners. Submission has also been made that if any of the petitioners want transfer from FSD, Jodhpur to any other eligible FSD other than FSD, Udaipur, the said aspect can be considered by the respondents. 12. Submissions were made with respect to the note-sheets produced during the course of arguments in support of additional affidavit that the respondents have strictly followed the guidelines and have acted in a most fair manner and, therefore, the issues sought to be raised in this regard have no basis. 13. Further submissions were made that the aspect of rationalization process or justification to effect the order of transfer, unless malafides are alleged, cannot be gone into under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 14. Reliance was placed on Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Mazdoor Sangh v. FCI & Ors.: Writ Petition No.38560/2016, decided on 26.09.2016 by Allahabad High Court. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. The Bombay High Court in the suo moto PIL inter alia directed as under:- "30. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation by passing the following order. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. The Bombay High Court in the suo moto PIL inter alia directed as under:- "30. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation by passing the following order. (i) The Government of India is directed to decide the representation made by the Food Corporation of India for grant of exemption under the provisions of Section 31 of the said Act within a period of one month from today, in the light of observations made by us hereinabove within a period of one month from today. (ii) The Government of India shall decide the issue regarding de-notification of the depots of the Food Corporation of India, in respect of which notification is issued u/s.10 of the said Act, within a period of six months from today, in the light of observations made by us hereinabove and the report of M/s. Deloitt Consultancy and the report of High Level Committee appointed by the Government of India itself. (iii) We clarify that the respondent/Food Corporation of India would be entitled to transfer the services of departmental labourers from one depot to another subject to protecting their salary and all other service conditions. (iv) We also clarify that the respondent/Corporation would be at liberty to implement its policy of change in the Scheme of incentives. (v) The Government of India shall also take a decision regarding abolition of system of departmental labourers in a phased manner or absorbing their services in other establishments as recommended by the High Level Committee." 17. Pursuant thereto, after notification under Section 31 of the Act of 1970 was issued, guidelines dated 12.07.2016 (Annex.6) were formulated by FCI. (v) The Government of India shall also take a decision regarding abolition of system of departmental labourers in a phased manner or absorbing their services in other establishments as recommended by the High Level Committee." 17. Pursuant thereto, after notification under Section 31 of the Act of 1970 was issued, guidelines dated 12.07.2016 (Annex.6) were formulated by FCI. The relevant guidelines regarding which the petitioners have raised objection regarding same being flouted, reads as under: "(ii) The requirement of labour in the heavily operated depots may be calculated on current average work load of preceding three financial years by the formula given below: No. of Handling Labour required = Average Annual work load of three preceding Financial year/135*240 No. of Ancillary Labour required = 4 Ancillary labour against the storage capacity of 5000 M.T. After calculating the requirement of the heavily operated depots by applying the above formula labourers from the depot having scanty handling operation may be shifted to nearby depots so that there is least disturbance to the workers. In case of the departmental labour pooling should be made taking into consideration zero incentive on datum i.e. the labour is sufficient enough to manage the work within the norms and there are minimum occasions for payment of incentive on number of bags handled in a day. (iii) The depots are to be prioritized in descending order on the basis of requirement for distributing the workers in the pooling exercise. Pooling should be in maximum work load depots first so that idle wages are also minimized in case of departmental and DPS workers. 18. Further conditions having relevance in this regard may be noticed as under: "(x) Individual depot should have single labour system and in no case labour of more than one system be engaged in one depot. (xi) Subsequent to pooling of labourers, handling contractors be deployed in vacant depots following due process." 19. In the order dated 30.10.2018 (Annex.7), after noticing the various observations made by Bombay High Court and referring to the guidelines, the respondents after observing the following, ordered for transfer of departmental labourers:- "6. In order to ensure compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench and specific direction given by the ED(N) during her inspection of DO Ajmer as on 18.09.2018 to further rationalise the Departmental labour strength for its optimum utilisation. 7. In order to ensure compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench and specific direction given by the ED(N) during her inspection of DO Ajmer as on 18.09.2018 to further rationalise the Departmental labour strength for its optimum utilisation. 7. Due to regular retirement and frequent voluntary retirement of labours, strength of labour shrinked to smooth operation at depots as well as regular absentism increased at all depots, as the old and infirm condition of handling labours, resulting handling cost is fluctuating on month by month. 8. After reviewing the Depotwise handling cost, labour working strength and long pending own request transfer of so many Labourers as well as adopting labour strength assessment guidelines of FCI, Hqrs. Letter dated 12.07.2016, competent Authority ordered to further pool the Departmental Labour of FSD Jodhpur to FSD Udaipur & FSD Ajmer and considered sympathetically own request transfer of labours in the interest of Corporation as well as labours, it is decided to Pool and transfer of the Departmental Labours are as under." 20. A perusal of the guidelines would indicate that a formula has been indicated for calculating the current average working load and labourers from the depots having scanty operations were proposed to be shifted to nearby depot. 21. It is informed that in the year 2016 by undertaking the said exercise the departmental labourers from Barmer, Srivijaynagar, Banswara and Swaimadhopur were pooled in various other FSDs including Jodhpur and Udaipur. 22. In the order dated 30.10.2018 it has been indicated that after reviewing the depotwise handling cost, labour working strength and long pending own request for transfer and by adopting labour strength assessment guidelines, the competent authority had ordered to pool the departmental labourers of FSD, Jodhpur to FSD, Udaipur & FSD, Ajmer. 23. The respondents in reply to the writ petition filed material seeking to substantiate the said observations made in the order of transfer. However, the respondents were directed to place on record any specific decision taken by the respondent-FCI to close down the use of departmental labourers at FSD, Jodhpur and engage contract labourers for the said FSD. Pursuant to the direction, an additional affidavit with Annex.R/12 & R/13 placing part of the note-sheets were produced and during the course of submissions entire note-sheets were produced, which were taken on record. 24. Pursuant to the direction, an additional affidavit with Annex.R/12 & R/13 placing part of the note-sheets were produced and during the course of submissions entire note-sheets were produced, which were taken on record. 24. The note-sheets indicate that exercise was started on account of a letter by the headquarter dated 15.01.2018 and after undergoing several analysis and discussions in this regard and after comparative analysis of four FSDs i.e. Ajmer, Gandhinagar, Jodhpur and Udaipur, the decision was taken. 25. The note-sheet dated 31.8.2018 relevant for the present purpose reads as under:- 26. The above note-sheet clearly indicates that the requirements as indicated in Clause (ii) of the guidelines (supra) have been taken into consideration based on the formula, wherein, the respondents have come to the conclusion that it is the FSD, Jodhpur which is having scanty handling operation as compared to other FSDs and based on the overall analysis and deliberation made, a conclusion was reached for shifting the departmental labourers to FSD, Udaipur. As such the objections raised by the petitioners have no substance. 27. So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that while clause (ii) requires calculation of current average working load of the preceding three financial years as the formula, however, the respondents have taken into consideration the average working load of preceding two years is concerned, it is not in dispute that prior to 2016, there were several other FSDs like Barmer, Srivijaynagar, Swaimadhopur etc., and after 2016 upon review of depotwise work load, the departmental labourers working there were shifted to four centres i.e. Ajmer, Gandhinagar - Jaipur, Jodhpur and Udaipur. Once, the respondents were required to analyze the data based on the formula indicated therein, they were required to take into consideration the normal conditions which were prevailing for the period post 2016 and, therefore, they were justified in taking into consideration the data of two years. If the submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would result in taking into consideration varying circumstantial data as for one year prior to 2016 the status would have been different as that time there were several other FSDs and post 2016 the same were concentrated into four FSDs and, therefore, the action of the respondents in taking two years data into consideration cannot be faulted with on the ground as raised by the petitioners. 28. 28. The submissions made regarding transferring existing departmental labourers from Udaipur to other places and simultaneously transferring labourers from Jodhpur FSD to Udaipur FSD being contradictory also has no substance inasmuch as the said labourers, who have been transferred on request were all earlier working at FSD Swaimadhopur and for them apparently working at Jaipur would be more convenient and action of the respondents in acceding to their request cannot be said to be unjustified. 29. A feeble submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners based on the data quoted hereinbefore indicating that the respondents have only taken into consideration 38 departmental labourers working at Jodhpur, whereas, they have transferred 47 persons. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the data of 38 persons is of handling labourers and 'Sardar' and 'Mandal' have not been taken into consideration, whereas, they have also been transferred and, therefore, the submission made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioners is also baseless. 30. So far as the judgment in the case of Dr. B.M.Bohra (supra) is concerned, the observation made therein regarding requirement of an administrative action being free from arbitrariness does not admit of any exception, however, the same apparently has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, the notesheets as produced by learned counsel for the respondents, indicate thorough and exhaustive deliberation on part of the respondents before passing the order impugned. 31. Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Mazdoor Sangh (supra), when steps were taken in the 2016 pursuant to the judgment of Bombay High Court and action was questioned, came to the conclusion that the departmental labourers hold transferable post and petitioners' transfer from one Depot to another cannot be questioned and as the exercise undertaken was to rationalize the deployment of departmental labourers pursuant to the orders passed by the Bombay High Court, the same was not interfered with. 32. In view of the above discussion, the challenge laid by the petitioners in relation to violation of guidelines dated 12/7/2016 (Annex.6) has no substance. The other grounds pertaining to alleged arbitrariness on part of the respondents also have no substance. 33. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 34. 32. In view of the above discussion, the challenge laid by the petitioners in relation to violation of guidelines dated 12/7/2016 (Annex.6) has no substance. The other grounds pertaining to alleged arbitrariness on part of the respondents also have no substance. 33. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 34. In case the petitioners feel advised, they may approach the respondents for transfer to other eligible FSD, as per the offer made by respondents during course of submissions.