IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Mangu Ram – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 738 of 2024
Decided on : 06-09-2024
Transfer - Air Force Posting - Policy of 2020, Policy of 2022 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Air Force posting policies, emphasizing the limited scope for interference in transfer orders unless statutory violations or mala fides are demonstrated, ultimately upholding the administrative discretion in postings.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a member of the Indian Air Force, challenged a transfer order that moved him from Jodhpur to Bihar, citing family circumstances. The Single Judge quashed the transfer, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's posting was a request posting under the Policy of 2022, which limited tenure to two years. The court emphasized that the discretion of the Air Force in postings is paramount and should not be interfered with unless there are clear violations.
Issues: Whether the transfer order was valid under the applicable Air Force policies and whether the court should interfere with the administrative decision regarding postings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer orders in the armed forces are primarily administrative decisions, and interference is only warranted in cases of statutory violations or mala fides, which were not present in this case.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's order was quashed, reviving the transfer order.
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4797/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General alongwith Ms.Dimple Purohit appearing on behalf of appellants (respondents in the writ petition) before this Court are that the respondent-writ-petitioner Mr. Surendra Kumar was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 28.03.2007, and was posted at 33 SU, Air Force Unit, Jodhpur w.e.f. 10.05.2021 for trade duties on a co-locating posting, vide order dated 08.03.2021.
2.1. Thereafter, vide transfer order dated 08.02.2024, the respondent-writ petitioner has been ordered to be posted at 314 TRU (Darbhanga, Bihar) from Jodhpur with effect from 06.05.2024. The respondent-writ petitioner submitted applications before the appellants for cancellation of the said transfer order, on the grounds that his mother was unwell, wife being a government employee (posted at Jodhpur) and his daughter being five years of age; however, the said applications were rejected by the appellants.
2.2. Thus, laying challenge to the said transfer order dated 08.02.2024, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4794/2024) before this Hon’ble Court against the order dated 08.02.2024, which was allowed by the learned Single Bench vide the impugned order dated 04.04.2024, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.02.2024, qua the respondent-writ petitioner, with a direction to the appellants to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of co-locating posting contained in posting policy dated 24.02.2020/24.11.2022 keeping into consideration that the age of the respondent-writ petitioner’s daughter as well as the fact that the respondent-writ petitioner has not completed 7 years of service at Jodhpur; it was further directed that the tenure of the respondent-writ petitioner be extended till his daughter attains the age of 10 years or till he completes 7 years of service at Jodhpur, whichever is earlier.
3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Air Headquarters Human Resource Policy Part-II/PA (Air Warrior)/PD/01/2020 dated 24.02.2020 (in short, ‘Policy of 2020’) was superseded by Air Headquarters Human Resource Policy Part-II/PA /PD/01/2022 dated 24.11.2022 (in short, ‘Policy of 2022’). He further submits that as per para 29 of the Policy of 2022, “the Airman will posted to the requested place as far as possible on TPU and tenure will be depending on utilisation driven by organisational requirement”.
3.1. Learned Deputy Solicitor General further submits that the posting of the respondent-writ petitioner vide order dated 08.03.2021 was not a posting on co-location ground but was a ‘request posting’ as governed by paras 21-32 of the Policy of 2022; the said request posting was restricted for a tenure of two years and the respondent-writ petitioner has already completed the said posting tenure, and thus, was not entitled for any extension beyond the normal tenure of 2 years on a request posting.
3.2. Learned Deputy Solicitor General also submits that the Airmen is initially engaged for 20 years, and is supposed to be posted at various places, like Hard Area, Field Area, Modified field area, North East etc. He further submits that the home zone posting is reserved for an Air Warrior on compassionate grounds for 2 years, that too on merit basis, generally for a restricted tenure; if out of 20 years, the Air Warrior concerned is permitted to spend 7 years at home zone, followed by same treatment being sought and granted to all Air Warriors, the administration and discipline of the Defence Forces, particularly in regard to the defence operations
Major Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 18 SCC 478;
Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 227;
National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan [(2001) 8 SCC 574 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 21]
The court established that the discretion of military authorities in transfer matters is broad, and judicial interference is limited unless there is a clear violation of law or evidence of mala fides....
The court established that co-location postings for airmen should prioritize family welfare and that tenure restrictions must align with the policies governing such postings, particularly in cases in....
Transfers within service are at discretion of authorities based on administrative needs, not strictly bound by service tenure guidelines.
Administrative transfers are within the authority's discretion, and employees have no vested right to remain posted at a specific location. The court emphasized that administrative transfers are esse....
Judicial interference in employee transfers limited unless mala fide or statutory violation; administrative guidelines not enforceable rights.
Transfer orders must be reasoned, addressing individual representations; mechanical rejections invalid despite administrative exigency.
Transfer orders require reasoned speaking rejection of representations considering individual hardships and policy guidelines.
Transfer of Group 'A' railway officers in administrative interest upheld; no absolute right to spouse posting, Placement Committee approval not mandatory, mid-session/child grounds exhaustible, SC po....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.