1. Transfer of an employee — Seniority dispute — Challenge to transfer order and seniority determination. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 590
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Phukan : S.R.Babu
A.P.State Road Transport
Versus
V.Veeraiah
Case No. : 2267 of 2000
Date of Decision : 3/16/00
A transfer granted at the request of an employee for personal reasons and based on the employer's sympathetic view cannot be categorized as a transfer due to administrative exigencies, which would otherwise protect the employee's seniority.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Transfer and Seniority - Transfer at employee's request versus administrative exigencies - Whether seniority should be protected when a transfer is sought by the employee for personal reasons.
(B) Where a transfer is effected pursuant to an application made by the employee citing personal problems and the employer grants the transfer taking a sympathetic view, such a transfer cannot be categorized as being made on account of administrative exigencies or the creation of a new division. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee working as a conductor was transferred following an order stating that the transfer was based on the employee's own request and that seniority would be reckoned accordingly. The employee challenged the impact on his seniority before the High Court. The High Court held that the transfer was based on administrative exigencies and the creation of a new division and therefore ruled that seniority should not be adversely affected. This was affirmed by the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
Upon reviewing the employee's application for transfer, the court found that the request was based on personal problems and the employer had acted sympathetically. Consequently, it was held that the High Court was not justified in concluding that the transfer was due to administrative exigencies or the creation of a new division.
Issues: Whether the transfer of the employee was carried out due to administrative exigencies or was a result of a request made by the employee for personal reasons, and the subsequent effect on seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: A transfer made at the specific request of an employee for personal reasons and granted by the employer on sympathetic grounds does not constitute a transfer based on administrative exigencies, and therefore, the protections associated with administrative transfers regarding seniority do not apply.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued transfer was on employee's request due to personal problems; respondent contended transfer was due to administrative exigencies. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The High Court erred in holding the transfer was due to administrative exigencies when it was made on the employee's request. (Para 4 )
4. A transfer made on an employee's request for personal reasons cannot be treated as one made due to administrative exigencies. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside; respondent's writ petition dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Can a voluntary transfer on an employee's request be treated as one on account of administrative exigencies?
No, a transfer made on an employee's request due to personal problems cannot be treated as having been made on account of administrative exigencies. (Para 4 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THE respondent is working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Appellants. He came to be transferred pursuant to an order made by the Corporation on 18.7.80. In that order it is noted that the respondent was transferred on his request and his seniority would be reckoned in the manner stated therein. However, he questioned the action of the Appellants in so far as it related to his seniority before the High Court in a writ petition. The High Court stated that the transfer had been effected on account of administrative exigencies and creation of a new division and, therefore, his seniority should not be affected to his disadvantage. The order made by the learned Single Judge was taken up in appeal which came to be dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(4) LEARNED counsel for the Appellants drew our attention to the order made by the-Corporation on 18.7.80 which, was pursuant to the application made by the respondent as Annexure B which clearly indicates that he had certain personal problems and, therefore, opted for a transfer. On those grounds, the order has been made by the Corporation taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the circumstances we do not think the High Court is justified in holding that the transfer is on account of administrative exigencies or by creation of a new division. We are of the view that the order made by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, needs to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
