Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 198 (MP)

Alok Agrawal v. Union of India

2021-02-22

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, VIRENDER SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 2. By this miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench whereby the petitioner's original application No. 200/00902/2019 has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the transfer order dated 24.03.2018, the relieving order and the communication dated 06.03.2019. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on 11.03.1991 as Senior Technician-cum-Operative Trainee and he was sent for training for a period of one and half year. On completion of training, he was posted as Senior Technician (Grade L-6) in the Workshop of Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital and Research Center, Steel Plant Bhilai to perform the duties of repair and maintenance of medical equipments. The petitioner is doing that work since then and by the impugned transfer order dated 24.03.2018, the petitioner was transferred to Steel Melting Shop (SMS-2) and by the order dated 24.03.2018 he was relieved for joining at transferred place and by order dated 06.03.2019, he was again informed that transfer was on the administrative ground. The petitioner after duly complying the order of transfer had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application. The Tribunal after giving the opportunity to the parties to file reply and rejoinder and considering the respective plea of the parties has dismissed the original application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of transfer violates Clause 23 of the Standing Orders as it results in change in service conditions. He further submits that the nature of duties, which are to be performed at transferred place is different from one, which the petitioner was performing in the Medical Department. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University vs. Dayanand Jha, (1986) 3 SCC 7 . 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed that the Tribunal has duly considered the submissions raised by the petitioner in the light of the requirement of Clause 23 of the Standing Order. Clause 23 of the Standing Order permits the transfer of an employee without affecting the pay, grade, continuity and conditions of service and with the rider that on transfer, the job should be of similar nature and such as he is capable of doing. Clause 23 of the Standing Order permits the transfer of an employee without affecting the pay, grade, continuity and conditions of service and with the rider that on transfer, the job should be of similar nature and such as he is capable of doing. The record reflects that the appointment of the petitioner was as Senior Technician and he has obtained the training in this regard also. He has been transferred to SMS-2 only for maintenance job and as per terms of appointment his services were transferable. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the petitioner's pay, grade, continuity or any other condition of service is affected by the impugned transfer order. 6. So far the nature of job is concerned, the Tribunal has already examined the same and has found that there is no change in the nature of job. The Tribunal has duly taken note the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is a Maintenance Service Technician of Equipments and his service can be utilized anywhere in the Plant for maintenance work though equipments may be different. The respondents have shown the administrative exigency by disclosing that due to expansion of plant and massive modernization, there was a need of the petitioner in the SMS-2. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal reveals that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the OA. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University (supra), but that was a case where the Principal of College was transferred to the post of Reader in another College and it was found that both the posts are not equivalent. The present case stands on the different footing as on transfer neither the designation of the petitioner is changed nor his other service conditions are affected. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shilpi Bose V. State of Bihar reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 in paragraph 4 has held as under:- "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department...................." 9. The Supreme Court also in the matter of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1993(4) SCC 357 in paragraph 7 has held as under:- "7. 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 any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. the said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right." 10. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, hence scope of interference is very limited. Since the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any patent illegality, therefore no case for interference is made out. 11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.