Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Krishna Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Small Industrial Development Bank of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 16517 of 2022, CM APPL. 51896 of 2022, 6079 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Transfer - Quashing of Transfer Order - Compendium dated 23.12.2014 - Para 18(v) - CVC Guidelines - HRV Circular No.57/2018-19 - Best Fit for the Job - [KEYWORD] - [Transfer] - [Compendium dated 23.12.2014, CVC Guidelines, HRV Circular No.57/2018-19] - The court discussed the applicability of para 18(v) of the Compendium dated 23.12.2014, CVC Guidelines, and HRV Circular No.57/2018-19 in the context of the transfer order. It highlighted the principles of 'Best Fit for the Job' and the employer's prerogative in effecting transfers based on administrative requirements and service exigencies. The court emphasized that transfers should not be interfered with unless vitiated by malafides or in violation of statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an Assistant Manager and office bearer of the SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, sought to quash a transfer order from New Delhi to Dehradun, alleging violation of transfer policy and discrimination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was made in the exigencies of service and for administrative reasons, without malafide or vendetta. It held that the Petitioner's reliance on para 18(v) of the Compendium was misplaced, and the transfer was part of an overall restructuring process based on analysis and assessment.
Issues: Violation of transfer policy, discrimination, applicability of para 18(v) of the Compendium, and malafide in the transfer order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in transfer matters, the employer's prerogative in effecting transfers, and the need for strong evidence to prove prejudice to public interest. It reiterated the principles that transfers are administrative orders and should not be interfered with unless vitiated by malafides or in violation of statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking to quash the transfer order was dismissed, and an extended joining time was granted to the Petitioner. The court declined to grant permission for the Petitioner to make a representation for posting at Mumbai.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 22.11.2022, passed by the Respondent, whereby the Petitioner has been transferred from Green Climate Finance Vertical, New Delhi Office to Branch Office, Dehradun.
2. Petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Manager, is also the General Secretary of the SC/ST Employees Welfare Association of the Respondent Bank (hereinafter referred to as `Association') and Vice Chairman of All India Federation of SC/ST Organizations.
3. The transfer order dated 22.11.2022 is assailed by the Petitioner on manifold grounds. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that as per clause 5.1 of the Transfer Policy, the normal tenure of stay of an officer at a centre is generally 3-5 years and by the amended policy embodied in the Circular dated 08.03.2018, the general tenure is 5 years. Petitioner was posted three years ago at the Delhi Office albeit the period of Covid-19 from April, 2020 to March, 2022 was decided to be expunged for the purpose of calculation of the tenure, by a Circular dated 17.05.2022 issued by the Respondent and, therefore, he cannot be transferred prior to completion of normal tenure. The impugned order is also contrary to para 18 of the Compendium dated 23.12.2014 on "Reservation for and Employment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Financial Organisations under the Department of Financial Services, including Reserve Bank of India", which deals with `Facilities to SC/ST Employees Welfare Associations' and provides in sub-para (v) for retention of at least 2-3 office bearers of recognized Welfare Associations at or near the Headquarter to facilitate them to attend to welfare activities pertaining to SC/ST employees. The Compendium has been issued by the Ministry of Finance and is applicable to all Financial Institutions, including the Respondent and the intent is to emphasize on the fact that SC/ST Employees Welfare Associations stand on a different footing compared to other Associations and thus the Organizations are under a mandate to provide them special facilities. As the Petitioner is the General Secretary of the Association, Respondent was bound to follow the mandate of para 18(v) and retain the Petitioner at Delhi, where the Registered Office of the Association is located.
4. It is further contended that the impugned order is punitive and has been issued out of clear vendetta since the Petitioner has been raising issues against the Respondent with respect to the harassment and discrimination meted out to the SC/ST employees as well as reservations in contractual employment. Petitioner is the only principal office bearer posted at Headquarter in Delhi, while the others are posted in Mumbai, Lucknow etc., and the transfer of the Petitioner outside Delhi would frustrate the functioning of the Association.
5. Mr. Sah further contends that Petitioner has been singled out for transfer albeit he has only completed less than 2 years, going by the benefit given on account of Pandemic Covid-19, while other employees holding the same designation i.e. Assistant Manager, have not been moved, despite being in Delhi for over 7-8 years and to illustrate this, examples of Sh. Niraj Kumar and Sh. Rishikesh Kumar have been cited by him.
6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent, however, on the last date of hearing certain additional grounds were urged by the Petitioner and hence Respondent has handed over an additional affidavit, responding to the said pleas, with copy to the Petitioner. With consent of the parties, the affidavit is taken on record and Court has proceeded to hear the arguments.
7. Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the impugned transfer order has been issued purely in the exigencies of service and for administrative reasons and there is no element of malafide or
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in transfer matters, the employer's prerogative in effecting transfers, and the need for strong evidence to prove....
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers made without mala fides and within policy guidelines are valid even if completed shortly before the normal retention period.
Frequent transfers contravene established transfer policies and may constitute harassment, requiring reconsideration of grievances while emphasizing the importance of a conducive work environment.
A transfer order that results in the de-facto demotion of an officer to a subordinate position, lacks transparency, and deviates from established service rules constitutes an arbitrary and unfair adm....
The court ruled that transfer orders are administrative decisions and can only be interfered with if proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Transfers of government employees cannot be interfered with unless proven to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions; administrative exigencies govern such decisions.
Transfer policies are directory, not mandatory, and courts will not interfere unless there is clear malafide or statutory violation.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; absence of a defined transfer policy renders such orders arbitrary, necessitating formulation of a policy.
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
