Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 61 (KER)

Joy Karunakaran S/o Karunakaran v. Union of India

2025-01-14

AMIT RAWAL, K.V.JAYAKUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J The present OP(CAT) is preferred against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.616/2024, whereby the following claims of the petitioner was rejected. (i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure-A1 and quash the same to the extent it relates to the applicant; (ii) Allow the applicant to continue at Thiruvananthapuram in his present place till the end of the academic year as ordered in Annexure-A5; (iii) Award costs of and incidental to this Application; (iv) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant, Sri.Joy Karunakaran, has challenged Annexure-A1 order issued by the 3 rd respondent temporarily attaching the petitioner/applicant, along with six others, to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy) – [hereinafter referred to as ‘PCDA(N)’, for short], Mumbai till 31.01.2025 for a specific task related to pension work under the Organization of PCDA (N), Mumbai. 3. The applicant is a Senior Auditor in System for Pension Administration (RAKSHA) [hereinafter referred to as, ‘SPARSH’, in short] Service Centre, Defence Accounts Department, Thiruvananthapuram. He was working in Thiruvananthapuram from 2017 onwards. He is already under orders of transfer, by virtue of Annexures-A2 and A4 to Cochin. However, on consideration of the fact that his elder child is studying in class-X, the transfer stands deferred till 31.03.2025. 4. He was attached to LAO (A), Thiruvananthapuram as per Annexure-A6 order which also has been deferred by Annexure-A7 order till 31.12.2024. 5. The grievance of the petitioner/applicant is that, he was transferred during the midst of the transfer/attachment, ignoring the transfer policy that a transfer shall not be made if the child of the employee is in class X/XII. 6. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that Annexure-A1 order is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is issued with malafides. 7. The stand of the respondents was that the transfer policy guidelines are not intended to create any entitlement but for the smooth functioning of the department, which is more important. 8. Noticing the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner in the following manner: “11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the correctness of such orders cannot be weighed by the Tribunal. It should be left to the wisdom of the employer. 8. Noticing the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner in the following manner: “11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the correctness of such orders cannot be weighed by the Tribunal. It should be left to the wisdom of the employer. Not only that, no malafides are alleged or proved; the public interest highlighted by the respondents should not give way to the personal inconvenience of the applicant. The Original Application lacks merit and is dismissed. No costs.” 9. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petitioner/applicant submitted that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and interference from this Court is warranted. 10. We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 11. The reasoning of the Tribunal is that transfer orders issued by the department cannot be weighed by the Tribunal since the transfer is an incidence of service. The Tribunal was of the view that, in the matter of transfer, orders issued by the department should be left open to the wisdom of the employer. 12. In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka & Others [ 1986(4) SCC 131 ] , the Apex Court made it clear that transfer is an incident of service. The same principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Union of India & Others v. Muralidhara Menon & Another [2009 KHC 4955] . In Muralidhara Menon ’s Case (supra), it was observed that an employee has no right to be posted at a particular place. 13. In Prabir Banerjee v. Union of India & Others [ 2007(8) SCC 793 ] , the Apex Court opined that transfer is an incident of service under the Central Service Rules and the employee has no cause to complain in respect of transfer [See also, Registrar General High court of judicature at Madras V. R Perachi &Others [ AIR 2012 SC 232] and X v. Registrar General, High court of Madhya Pradesh &Another [2022 KHC 6164] ]. 14. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in S K Naushad Rahman & Others V. Union of India & Others [AIR 2022 SC 1494] . It was held that, transfer in All India Service is an incident of service. 14. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in S K Naushad Rahman & Others V. Union of India & Others [AIR 2022 SC 1494] . It was held that, transfer in All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right, or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of his/her choice. 15. In the lights of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality much less fallacy in the impugned order. O.P(CAT).No.3/2025 fails and is dismissed.