Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Umesh Chandra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9039 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous No. 29123 of 2020
Decided On : 04-01-2021
Transfer - Administrative Exigencies - Transfer Policy - Job Rotation Policy - Mala Fide - Routine Transfer - No Interference
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scientist at NTPC, challenged a transfer order to Kudgi, Karnataka, on the grounds that it did not align with his specialized qualifications and job profile. The petitioner had previously challenged a transfer to KBUNL, Bihar, which was dismissed. The petitioner also relied on the Job Rotation Policy, which excluded scientists from job rotation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the transfer was a routine administrative transfer made in the interest of administrative exigencies. The Court observed that the petitioner's technical qualifications and expertise were not in question, but it was for NTPC to decide how to best utilize the petitioner's services. The Court noted that the transfer did not violate any policy or have a detrimental effect on the petitioner's career.
Issues: Challenge to transfer order based on specialized qualifications and job profile, reliance on Job Rotation Policy, allegations of mala fide.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in the absence of mala fides, policy violations, or a detrimental effect on the employee's career, the challenge to the transfer order must be eschewed and interference should be minimal.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted a two-week joining period to join the new place of posting, with the period of pendency treated as duty.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 15.04.2020 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as NTPC) whereby the representation of the Petitioner dated 18.02.2020 has been rejected as well as to the Transfer Order dated 22.10.2020 and Release Order dated 28.10.2020 transferring the Petitioner to NTPC Kudgi, Karnataka. A direction is also sought to NTPC to post the Petitioner on the post of 'Scientist' in Research and Development Department (R&D), NETRA.
2. Petitioner had challenged his earlier Transfer to KBUNL, Kanti, Bihar, in a spate of litigation and although in the present petition the challenge is to a Transfer Order, whereby the Petitioner is transferred to Kudgi, however, the grounds for challenge are more or less the same.
3. As narrated in the petition, the facts necessary to decide the controversy involved in the present petition are that the Petitioner, after completing his M.Tech and having joined Bhabha Atomic Research Centre as a Scientist in the specialized area of Fracture Mechanics, Creep and Fatigue Analysis till 10.05.2005, responded to an Advertisement issued on 30.10.2004 by NTPC for recruitment of two Scientists / Technologists. In the Advertisement the minimum educational qualifications stipulated were Masters Degree in Chemical / Mechanical Engineering with CGPA of 8.50 or equivalent, with a post qualification experience, as mentioned in the advertisement.
4. Petitioner was selected for the post and an offer of appointment to the post of 'Scientist' at E4 level was issued on 22.03.2005. Petitioner was accordingly appointed as 'Scientist' and posted at Energy Technologies (ET) Department of NTPC. On 03.02.2009, ET and the then R&D Department were merged together to form a new Department called NETRA (NTPC Energy Technology Research Alliance), Greater Noida.
5. On 26.02.2010 Petitioner was promoted to Level E5 with effect from 01.01.2010, though according to him he should have been promoted with effect from 01.01.2009. Vide Circular dated 21.08.2012, designations in NTPC were made generic and the Petitioner was redesignated as Senior Manager (NETRA) from Scientist E5 (NETRA).
6. Vide order dated 14.07.2015, Petitioner was transferred to Operations and Maintenance Department (Mechanical Maintenance) KBUNL, Kanti, Bihar and the Petitioner protested against the Transfer Order by making several representations. Getting no favourable response, the Petitioner filed a petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No.738/2016 challenging the order amongst other reliefs. During the pendency of the said petition, a Release Order was served on the Petitioner on 29.01.2016, preponing the date of joining at Kanti. As there was no interim protection order and the Petitioner had joined the place of posting, the petition to the extent of the Transfer Order was disposed of as infructuous on 23.05.2016. LPA No.380/2016 filed against the said order was dismissed on 03.06.2016 and the Petitioner was also unsuccessful in challenging the said order before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.20295/2016 as the same was dismissed on 05.08.2016.
7. Petitioner made another representation on 19.12.2017 seeking transfer to NETRA on the ground of his specialized recruitment in terms of HR Policy dated 30.09.2017. Since there was no response from NTPC, Petitioner preferred W.P.(C) 11382/2018 before this Court challenging the inaction of NTPC on his representation. Vide order dated 22.10.2018, the petition was disposed of directing NTPC to decide the representation within four weeks and granting liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the decision, if aggrieved.
8. Ntpc rejected the representation vide order dated 21.11.2018, and the Petitioner approached the Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1289/2019 praying for quashing the order dated 21.11.2018 and to restore his position by transferring him back to NETRA. The petition was disposed of by the Court on 06.02.2020 directing the NTPC, that on the Petition
Administrative transfers are valid if justified by exigency and do not violate policy; employees cannot claim a right to remain in a specific post.
The main legal point established is that the employer's right to transfer employees as per administrative requirements and the limited scope of interference by the Courts in transfer matters, unless ....
Transfer orders within a company are administrative decisions that can be contested only on grounds of mala fides or clear policy violations, not merely for causing personal inconvenience.
An employee's transfer is justified under employment terms, and courts have limited grounds to interfere unless mala fides or statutory violations are established.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fides or clear policy violations; routine administrative transfers do not warrant intervention.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the transfer policy and statutory provisions in making transfer decisions, and the binding nature of policies framed by....
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
