1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 8.3.2019, 16.3.2019 and 30.4.2019 passed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively whereby the petitioner's representation for his transfer has been rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an employee of National Thermal Power Corporation (for short "NTPC"). He was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer and subsequently as Senior Engineer (Operation) in the year 2011 and thereafter as Deputy Manager (Operation) in the year 2014 and presently working on the post of Manager (Operation) in Gr. E-4 in Singrauli. The further case of the petitioner is that on 12.12.2016, the respondents issued online request transfer system MANAS to enable employees to seek transfer at places of their choice as per the availability, hence on account of petitioner's wife and mother's ailment, he submitted his online application on 12.3.2018 for his transfer to the places like Delhi and Bhopal as his wife is frequently required to visit Indraprashta Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and his mother who is residing with him was also suffering from 60% permanent disability.
3. According to the petitioner, his online application dated 12.3.2018 has been rejected on the ground that he did not submit the medical certificates of his mother and wife as also on the ground that there is no vacancy at Delhi or Bhopal. The contention of the petitioner is that the reasons assigned by the respondents for rejection of his application are unfounded as along with the application, he submitted all the relevant documents regarding the ailment of his mother and wife and availability of vacancies at Delhi and Bhopal. The further case of the petitioner is that favourable recommendation was also made by his superior for his transfer, however, no action was taken. However, on 16.3.2019, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Senior Manager (MMG), SSC ER-I subject to the condition that the petitioner is required to compulsorily join at the new place of posting i.e. District Barh (Bihar) within one month from the date of issuance of the order, thus, left with no other option, he joined at the new place of posting at Barh. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a fresh representation before the higher authorities and since no order was passed on the petitioner's representation, he filed WP No.7571/2019 before this Court, which was disposed of on 11.4.2019 directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that in the policy dated 12.12.2016, it is provided that if an employee joins the place of his choice upon his request then, in that case he shall not be allowed to exercise this option for further three years, hence if the petitioner joins at the present place of posting i.e. at Barh (Bihar) then, even in case of acute emergency he shall not be allowed to take transfer anywhere upon his request, therefore, he challenged the order dated 8.3.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 by which his initial request for transfer has been rejected. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he requested for his transfer to any place where super specialties hospitals are available so that treatment required by his wife and mother may be availed by them, and in compliance of the order passed by this Court in WP No.7571/2019, the petitioner's representation was decided and again rejected by the respondents on the same ground.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while passing the impugned orders the respondents did not consider the fact that the mother and wife of the petitioner are seriously ill and new place of posting does not have any super specialties hospital, hence the exercise done by the respondents is mala fide and in spite of availability of vacancies at Delhi and Bhopal, the petitioner has been deliberately kept away for no apparent reasons. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, as even in the policy dated 12.12.2016, it is clearly provided that once an employee joins the place of his choice upon his request then, in that case he shall not be allowed to exercise this option for further 3 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1974 4 SCC 3.
6. On the other hand learned Senior counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that no case for interference is made out, as by joining the post on his promotion, the petitioner has consented to the policy of the respondents and thus he cannot be allowed to contend that he had any compulsion. It is further submitted that the transfer was based purely on administrative exigency and also that it is a settled principle of law that a transfer is an incident of service and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioner's services were required at Barh (Bihar) and hence his request for transfer to other place has been declined. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and another Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 2 SCC 602. Lastly, it is submittted that the petitioner has not impleaded any person as a party in the petition despite alleging mala fide on the part of the respondent hence on this ground only, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out, as the petitioner has already joined at Barh (Bihar) on promotion and also that according to the respondents, the services of the petitioner are required at Barh (Bihar) and that no person again
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
st whom the mala fide are alleged is made a party to the petition, taking note of the fact that it is a settled proposition of law that a transfer is an incident of service, the impugned orders cannot be interfered with by this court under writ jurisdiction. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity and do not call for any interference. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. 9. As a result, petition sans merits, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.