Transfer orders of contractual employees are valid under the terms of their Memorandum of Understanding, establishing binding employer-employee relations that preclude challenges to such transfers.

ORDER :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the orders of their transfer.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

3. The petitioners are all working as a Grama Vidyut Prathinidhi ("GVP") in the respondent-Bangalore electric supply Company Limited ("BESCOM") for the last 23 years on consolidated payment. The petitioners filed the writ petitions seeking for regularisation of their services and payment of salary on par with the regular employees. The writ petitions were allowed. The respondent-BESCOM, aggrieved by the order passed by the Writ Court, preferred the writ appeals. The Division Bench partly allowed the writ appeals and set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge and directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners as they are all discharging the statutory duties, within a period of four months. Though four months has lapsed, the State Government has not recognised the status of the petitioners. In the meantime, respondent No.4, on the basis of the Circular issued by respondent No.3, passed the impugned orders changing the place of work of the petitioners within the Sub-Division.

4. It is contended that respondent No.4 has no right to pass an order of transfer on the ground that the respondents are not paying salary, including Travelling Allowance, Dearness Allowance and other allowances for discharging the duty by the petitioners. Hence, on these grounds, pray to allow these writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioners have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short 'MOU') with respondent No.4, and their appointment is contractual employment and they are contract employees. It is contended that respondent No.4 has jurisdiction to transfer the petitioners and the order of transfer is in accordance with law. It is relevant to note Clause 4.1.9 of the MoU, which reads as follows:

"4.1.9. A one-time payment of Rs.3,000/- will be given to Micro Feeder Franchise (MFF) if he/she is transferred from his/her original Grama Panchayat to another GRAMA PANCHAYAT."

6. It is contended that there is a contract between the petitioners and respondent No.4 and the petitioners, having admitted the terms and conditions of the MOU, signed the same. Now, the petitioners cannot contend that respondent No.4 cannot pass the orders of transfer. The orders of transfer are in accordance with the MOU. Hence, on these grounds, pray to dismiss these writ petitions.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a Memo stating that the petitioners are appointed as Contractual Meter Readers on a contractual employment. In view of the memo filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4, respondents admitted that the petitioners are appointed as contractual Meter Readers on contractual employment.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 has admitted regarding the petitioners were appointed as contractual Meter Readers on a contractual employment and he submits that before the filing of this memo, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have denied that the petitioners were not the employees of respondent Nos.2 to 4, and respondent No.4 has no authority to transfer the petitioners from one place to another place. He submits that in view of the memo filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4, the writ petitions may be disposed of.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that as the petitioners were appointed as contractual Meter Readers