Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY
Mithun Chakrabortty – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. engagement of petitioners under contractual basis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. lack of provision for transfer in contract. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. state's argument on transfer rights. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. transfer policy incorporation in contracts. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. court's view on contractual terms regarding transfer. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. dismissal of writ petition. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Aniruddha Roy, J.
FACTS :
1. The petitioners pursuant to the recruitment notices issued in the year 2006, 2018 and 2021, participated in the recruitment process and ultimately they were engaged for the post of District Accounts Manager (for short the said post) on contractual basis at the respective districts for the Programme Management Unit (PMU) under RCH-II which is a component of National Rural Health Mission.
2. The appointment was purely contractual against a monthly consolidated remuneration initially for a period of 11 months, as would be evident from the engagement letter Annexure P-2 at page 22 to the writ petition.
3. The contractual period of the petitioners was extended from time to time and accordingly, the engagement of the
Contractual employees can be subject to transfer if explicitly stated in their employment contract, limiting rights akin to permanent employees.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; absence of a defined transfer policy renders such orders arbitrary, necessitating formulation of a policy.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of inter-district transfer under NHM Policy and the locality-specific nature of contractual engagements under NHM.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a contractual employee without a permanent post cannot be transferred or detailed to a different place of posting.
Transfer orders within a corporation are valid administrative actions and do not require statutory regulations, affirming the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers made on administrative grounds are valid unless shown to be arbitrary or malicious.
Transfer decisions may prioritize administrative needs over statutory rights; executive guidelines do not impose enforceable rights upon employees regarding transfer policies.
Administrative transfers are not subject to judicial review unless issued by an incompetent authority or based on mala fides, reaffirming the principle that employees cannot claim a right to remain i....
The court affirmed that transfer orders are administrative decisions and should not be interfered with unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
