Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Umesh Chandra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 9039 of 2020 and CM No. 29123 of 2020
Decided On : 04-01-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to transfer order based on petitioner's background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments against the transfer related to qualifications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. defense of ntpc's transfer order and process. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. court's findings on prior litigation and transfer validity. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. reiterated principles on employer's prerogative to transfer. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. court's analysis of policy issues in transfer matters. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. conclusion on the validity of the transfer. (Para 44) |
| 8. dismissal of the petition. (Para 45) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--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 H
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.
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 ....
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.
Burden of proving mala fides in transfer orders is high; transfers made in public interest are generally not subject to judicial intervention unless proven arbitrary.
The court emphasized the necessity of fair consideration of personal circumstances in transfer decisions, without infringing upon the administrative authority's discretion.
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
