SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Cal) 214

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B.C. RAY, J.
P Dutta - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Decided on : Aug 02, 1983

Advocates appeared:
A.K. Majumdar, A.P. Chatterji, N.K. Choudhari,

Transfer of a government servant is a term and condition of service and cannot be challenged except on grounds of malafide or absence of administrative interest or exigency.

Headnote:

RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE ACT, 1957 - SECTION 15 - TRANSFER - POWER OF CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER - INTER DIVISIONAL TRANSFER - CONDITIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, an Inspector Grade II (Fire) in the Railway Protection Force, challenged an order transferring him from Kharagpur Division to Garden Reach Division. He argued that inter-divisional transfer required the President of India's sanction and that the transfer would disrupt his daughters' education and cause hardship due to his family's residential arrangements.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Chief Security Officer had the authority to transfer the petitioner under Section 15 of the Railway Protection Force Act and the relevant regulations. It found that the transfer was made in the interest of administration and that the petitioner's personal circumstances did not outweigh the administrative exigency.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Security Officer had the authority to transfer the petitioner from one division to another. 2. Whether the transfer was made in accordance with law and administrative exigency. 3. Whether the petitioner's personal circumstances warranted staying the transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 15 of the Railway Protection Force Act and the relevant regulations empower the Chief Security Officer to transfer members of the Railway Protection Force. 2. The transfer was made after the petitioner had completed seven years of service in Kharagpur Division, in accordance with the Railway Board's circular. It was made in the interest of administration and was not ex facie bad or illegal. 3. The petitioner's personal circumstances, including the disruption of his daughters' education and the hardship caused by the transfer, did not outweigh the administrative exigency.

Final Decision: The Court rejected the petition and vacated all interim orders, including the stay of the transfer order.

JUDGMENT

1. THIS application is at the instance of the petitioner who is an Inspector Grade II (Fire) of the Railway Protection Force challenging the impugned order of transfer annexed as annexure C to the writ application issued by the Chief Security Officer on the ground inter alia that the said transfer purports to transfer the petitioner from Kharagpur Division to Garden reach Division which is not permissible except with the sanction of the President of India. It has been also pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has six school and college going daughters reading in different schools and colleges and more particularly two daughters reading in the school and if this transfer is effected in this mid session it will be difficult to get admission of those daughters of he petitioner in a madhyamik School in Calcutta and this will seriously affect the educational career of these two daughters of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the transfer has been made by the Security Officer who is not empowered to issue the impugned order of transfer. It has also been stated in this connection that the petitioner having hailed from Kharagpur which is his native place and he has only less than three years of service at his disposal and so he should not be transferred on consideration of this compassionate ground that he being the father of six daughters in order to enable him to make some residential accommodation for members of his family. On all these grounds the impugned order of transfer has been assailed in the instant writ application before this Court on 19.5.83. On hearing the petitioner this Court directed the application to appear two weeks after the reopening of the Court after the summer vacation and an interim order of maintaining status quo as on that day was made. The petitioner thereafter made a representation against the order of transfer before the Chief Security Officer stating all the grounds and the representation has been annexed as annexure F to the petition. It appears from annexure G that the representation was considered by the Chief Security Officer and an order was made on 12.5.83 whereby it was found that no new grounds exist for retaining the petitioner in his present place of posting viz. at Kharagpur and the representation was rejected.

2. MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition, has urged before this Court only two grounds. The first ground is that regarding the question of inter divisional transfer an appeal is pending before the Appeal Bench of this Court where it has been observed that the question involved requires to be decided and as such there was an order of stay of operation of the order of transfer made by the Appeal Bench. Referring to this order it has been pleaded before this Court that since the appeal is pending and stay order has been granted by the Appeal Bench stay should be granted by this Court and Rule should be issued. The second branch of Mr. Chatterjee's argument is that the petitioner is the father of six daughters of which four are reading in different colleges and two are reading in secondary schools in Midnapore and if this transfer is effected in this mid session then education of these two children at least will be seriously affected and oh this consideration he urged before this Court that the order of transfer should not be given effect to. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has got little less than three years' tenure of service at his disposal and he is going to reach the age of superannuation on the 30th January, 1986 and as such considering this aspect of the matter the order of transfer should be kept in abeyance.

Mr. Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Railways, has on the other hand submitted before this Court by referring to provision of sec. 15 of the Railway Protection Force Act that all the members of the Railway Protection Force are liable to be transferred in any part









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top