Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Santosh Kumar Sahu - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16255 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Judicial interference in employment transfers is limited to cases with clear malice or policy violations; the employer's discretion is paramount in determining operational needs.
Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Transfer order - Petitioner contested transfer order as coercive and malicious, claiming no reasonable notice given. Respondent justified transfer citing organizational needs for a qualified engineer at a specific location. Court upheld the transfer, emphasizing minimal interference in employer's discretion. (Paras 4, 8, 43)
(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated the principle that transfer decisions are to be made by the employer unless there is evidence of mala fides or policy violations, thereby restricting judicial interference to instances of clear wrongdoing. (Paras 8, 43)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, employed as a Dy. Engineer at AIESL, challenged his transfer to Trivandrum, alleging malice and lack of notice. The transfer was claimed to be an overreach of the court’s process.
Findings of Court:
The court found no basis to determine the transfer as malicious; the petitioner’s qualifications justified the organizational transfer needs.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the transfer was legitimate and whether there were grounds for judicial intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that transfers are within the employer's prerogative when necessary for operational requirements, absent clear evidence of malice or procedural violations.
Result: Petition dismissed; the petitioner required to report in Trivandrum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition regarding transfer order. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding transfer's validity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's view on employer's discretion. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. directions regarding reporting and family transfer. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. order for procedural compliance and hearings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPLs.50855/2022 (for stay) & 50856/2022 (for direction)
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Santosh Kumar Sahu, seeking a direction for setting aside a transfer order dated 29th September, 2022 issued by Respondent No.2 - Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (hereinafter `AIESL').
3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Trainee Engineer- Support Services in AIESL by order dated 1st July, 2017. After successfully completing the requisite training period, vide appointment notification dated 31st August, 2018, he was appointed to the Engineering Department of AIESL as a Dy. Engineer- Support Services. He has served AIESL in Delhi since then.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is that, vide order dated 29th September, 2022, he was transferred with immediate effect to Trivandrum. Further, his relieving order dated 30th September, 2022 has called upon him to join on 3rd September, 2022 (sic) 3rd October, 2022. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the transfer order is coercive in nature. He claims that the said order constitutes overreaching of the Court process. He further claims that it is also contrary to the prevalent policy and is malicious.
5. In support of these submissions, ld. Counsel refers to order dated 21st July, 2022 passed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 10599/2022 titled Santosh Kumar Sahu v. Union of India. Ld. counsel submits that even before the transfer orders were issued, a large number of AIESL employees were asked to vacate their accommodation in Vasant Vihar. This was challenged by the said employees in W.P.(C) 10599/2022, out of whom, Petitioner was one of the aggrieved employees. In the said petition, the Union of India clearly made a statement that there is no intention to initiate the proceedings for eviction except in accordance with law under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
6. On the last date of hearing, it was submitted by ld. counsel for the Petitioner that reasonable notice and time for joining was also not given to the Petitioner. The entire process of transfer shows that the same was in hurried manner so as to punish the Petitioner for having filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) 10599/2022. It was also submitted that the wife and two daughters of the Petitioner are staying in Delhi. The Petitioner's wife is also working at AIESL and the daughters are in the middle of their school's academic session. Ld. counsel for the Respondent was, accordingly, directed to seek instructions.
7. Mr. A.P. Singh, ld. counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 i.e., AIESL under instructions from Mr. Sanjay Sharma, General Manager (Engg.), Northern Region, AIESL has sought instructions. Ld. Counsel submits that the services of the Petitioner are required in Trivandrum for service/maintenance of various aircrafts which are located at the Trivandrum airport. It is his submission that the Petitioner is one of the qualified European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) persons, who can undertake service and maintenance in this regard. He further submits that the fact that the family is located in Delhi would not be a ground to oppose transfer, inasmuch as in most transfer cases, officials concerned would be having families at the place from which transfer is made. It is further submitted by Mr. Singh, ld. counsel that the Petitioner has taken medical leaves and has not even reported on duty. In these circumstances, the Petitioner ought to be directed to join in new posting on urgent basis. Mr. Sinha,
