Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Rakesh G. - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
WA No. 2117 of 2024
Decided On : 18-02-2025
(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Transfer of employee - Appellant challenged transfer order from Shirdi to Manipur and salary deduction - Court found no statutory violation or mala fides in transfer - Court held transfer is an incident of service and interference is unwarranted without valid grounds. (Paras 1 , 13 , 22 )
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Interference in transfer orders requires proof of mala fides or statutory violation; mere personal difficulty is insufficient for judicial intervention. (Paras 20 , 21 )
Facts of the case:
The appellant was transferred from Shirdi Airport to Manipur International Airport, claiming the transfer was unjust and citing salary deductions. The learned Single Judge directed payment of salary arrears, leading to the closure of the writ petition. (Paras 1 , 2 , 3 )
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for interference in the transfer order and confirmed that the appellant's claims did not establish mala fides or statutory violations. (Paras 13 , 22 )
Issues: The main issues involved the validity of the transfer order and whether the salary deduction was justified. (Paras 2 , 12 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an employee has no legal right to remain in a specific location if transferred, as transfers are part of service conditions unless evidence of mala fides or statutory violations exist. (Paras 14 , 20 )
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna S., J.
1. The appellant who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.43404 of 2024 filed this appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , against the judgment dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the appellant challenging Ext.P4 order dated 28.11.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent transferring him from Shirdi Airport Site to Manipur International Airport site and also claiming reliefs pertaining to payment of salary in arrears to him was closed holding that nothing survives in the writ petition.
2. The appellant entered service in the 2nd respondent Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation (KITCO) Ltd. in the year 2005 as a Consultant Grade-II. He was promoted as Consultant Grade-I in 2009, Senior Consultant Grade-II in 2013 and Senior Consultant Grade-I in 2017. As per Ext.P1 order dated 24.06.2023, he was transferred to Shirdi as Project Director-Shirdi Airport and Head-West Region. While he was working at Shirdi, as per Ext.P4 order dated 28.11.2024 he was transferred to the Site of International Airport Project at Manipur with effect from 16.12.2024. Apart from challenging this transfer order, in the writ petition, the appellant pleaded that as per Ext.P7 e-mail communication dated 29.04.2020 salary of the employees of the 2nd respondent was reduced by 20%, claiming loss in the financial year 2019-2020. It was assured in Ext.P7 that the financial condition will be reviewed after six months and if the position improves, the deducted amount shall be disbursed. According to the appellant, the 2nd respondent appointed new employees with full wages and even then did not review the deduction of the salary of the existing employees as promised in Ext.P7. Therefore, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.43404 of 2024 and sought a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 transfer order and Ext.P7 communication regarding the deduction of salary of employees by 20% and other consequential reliefs.
3. When the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge directed the 2nd respondent to remit the salary of the appellant for two months forthwith to enable the appellant to join his transferred place at Imphal, taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant wants to go and join at Imphal and due to non-payment of salary for four months, he was unable to move out because of financial difficulty faced by him. In compliance with the direction of the learned Single Judge the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent appeared before the Court on 13.12.2024 and produced proof of remittance of Rs.2,98,378/- as salary to the appellant. Noting these facts, the learned Single Judge closed the writ petition and granted the appellant time till 23.12.2024 to join his transferred place at Imphal. It is thereafter the appellant filed the above writ appeal.
4. On 20.12.2024 when this writ appeal was taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1st respondent. We directed the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent to file counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, since the writ petition was closed at the admission stage without the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent being placed on record. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we granted an interim order permitting the appellant to continue as Project Director, Shirdi Airport, Maharashtra in case he has not already been relieved.
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit producing therewith Annexures R2(a) to R2(d), specifically denying the pleadings in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been working at Shirdi
Transfer orders are a condition of service; courts will not interfere without proof of mala fides or statutory violations.
Transfer orders are within the employer's discretion and not subject to judicial review unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations.
The management has the discretion to transfer employees without consent unless expressly prohibited in the employment contract, and non-compliance with transfer orders implies voluntary resignation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of transfer is a prerogative of the employer, and the courts cannot interfere with transfer orders made on administrative grounds un....
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
