Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Sanjeev Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
NTPC Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 14006 of 2019, CM Nos. 55947 of 2019, 135 of 2020 and 4762 of 2020
Decided On : 27-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer order challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's historical employment details. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. efficiency vs. existing from ntpc policies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. malafide action and procedural lapses in transfer. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. whistleblower implications on transfer orders. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. jurisdiction and alternative remedies in labor disputes. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. transfer authority and management prerogatives. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. employee transfer as an administrative necessity. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. judicial integrity in administrative transfer matters. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 10. discussion on the merits of transfer options. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 11. evolving operational requirements of ntpc. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 12. transfer as a position of equivalent responsibility. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 13. legitimacy of inter-region transfers. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 14. authority in transfer decision-making. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 15. workplace organization and employee role. (Para 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"It is most respectfully prayed that in view of submissions made herein above this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the transfer and release of Petitioner from NTPC-Faridabad to RIO Chennai (Tamilnadu) vide order No.319/2019 Date: 06.12.2019 (Annexure-PI).
ii. Declare that Change of cadre of petitioner from Jr. Chemist (Chemistry Department) to Jr. Officer (EEMG) is illegal and malafide.
iii. Cost of the present proceeding be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; and
iv. Pass such other and further orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The short issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Jr. Chemist at NTPC, Faridabad, Haryana to the post of Jr. Officer, Energy Efficiency Monitor Group (`EEMG' for short) at the Regional Inspection Office (`RIO' for short), Chennai, Tamil Nadu vide order no. 319/2019 dated December 6, 2019 (`impugned order' hereinafter) is justified.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the said transfer is actuated with mala fides, is vindictive and in violation of the transfer policy of the respondents. As per the averments made in the petition, the case of the petitioner is that the transfer order which was received by the petitioner on December 11, 2019 bypassed the existing company procedures such as the Whistle Blower Policy; contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Board, change of cadre, i.e., from Jr. Chemist to Jr. Officer (EEMG) which according to the petitioner does not exist at the RIO of the respondent company at Chennai.
4. Before turning to the merits of the controversy I may first reproduce the factual background concerning the instant petition.
(a) The petitioner joined the respondent Company on July 15, 1991 as an Assistant (DM Plant) Chemistry Section at NTPC, Anta Gas Power Project, Rajasthan (`NTPC Anta', for short) through an open recruitment advertisement for vacancy at the Anta Gas Power Project.
(b) On promotion he was re-designated as Jr. Chemist at NTPC Anta. The petitioner continued on that post from July 15, 1991 to May 11, 2012 after which he was transferred to the Commercial Office of the respondent No.1 at Jaipur.
(c) The petitioner was then again transferred to the Power Project in Faridabad, Haryana w.e.f. December 31, 2014 and has since been working there. As per the averments in the petition, the petitioner was awarded for his long service of more than 25 years.
5. Mr. Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel who appears for the petitioner, stated that the impugned order is not based on any administrative requirement but has been effected for extraneous reasons. He stated that the respondents' exercise of power in issuing transfer order is an example of malic
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.
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 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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that NEEPCO is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and the employment of the petitioner, though contended to be a co....
The judgment establishes that NEEPCO is an authority under Article 12, making its actions subject to judicial review. It also affirms that a contract of personal service can be subject to judicial re....
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
