Transfer is an essential condition of service, and employees do not have a vested right to work at a particular place. Transfer orders should be made in public interest or administrative exigency, and the burden of proving mala fides lies with the employee alleging it.

R.B. Misra, Judge.

In the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash his transfer order dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure P-2) from the office of Food Supplies Department (FSD), Nahan under the Food Corporation of India to the office of Manager (Depot), FSD, Gujjar-Ka-Talab, Nurpur, District Kangra with a further prayer that the petitioner may be allowed to continue at Nahan till the age of his superannuation.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 14.4.1978 as Shifter / Watchman and was promoted in the year 2008 as Dusting Operator as a Class-IV employee. According to the petitioner, he is suffering from multiple diseases, including heart disease, diabetes and neurological problem and many of the problems have arisen because of his present transfer in question. Despite his representations dated 21.8.2012 followed by another representation dated 3.9.2012 addressed to General Manager, Food Corporation of India, the impugned transfer order has not been modified. The petitioner has contended that while working as Dusting Operator i.e. being a Class-IV employee, he was not to be transferred to Nurpur, more-so, when petitioner’s daughter is studying in B.Sc. (Nursing) at Kala-Amb and the petitioner is due to retire from service in February 2015. In support of his case, the petitioner has submitted medical prescription slips as well as Medical Certificate (Annexure P-1).

3. On the other hand, through reply, filed on behalf of General Manager of Food Corporation of India, it has been contended that while seeking employment, the petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions, where the petitioner had agreed to serve in any part of India or outside. In Clause (IV) of the terms and conditions, in the offer of appointment to the post of Watchman / Messangers in Food Corporation of India dated 14.4.1978, read as below:-

“iv. He / she will be liable to serve in any part of India or outside. Initially he is being posted in Food Corporation of India, Himachal Pradesh Region.”

As such, employee of Food Corporation of India could be transferred to any place of need as per the requirement of the organization. Though the petitioner initially appointed at FCI, Parwanoo Depot at his own request was transferred to his home place on 13.7.1982, thereafter, on 19.7.1985 was transferred to FCI Jasur, but was brought back to his home place again i.e. to Nahan just in one year on 29.7.1986 but thereafter for about 26 years the petitioner has continuously been working at FCI, Nahan only. As indicated in the reply, an employee was needed to be transferred at Gujjar-Ka-Talab, as such, the impugned transfer order dated 18.8.2012 was passed in dire need, whereas, the petitioner has refused to join at Gujjar-Ka-Talab and has proceeded on medical leave. As indicated in reply, generally the officials / employees of FCI are transferred to the nearest procurement centres temporarily for the period of two to four weeks only and thereafter they are called back to the place of their postings, whereas, the daily and transport allowances are paid to such employees besides their salary, more specifically, during the procurement session of Rabi and Khafiff crops. The respondent can transfer the employee of FCI, where, it is necessarily required. During 34 years of service, the petitioner has remained near his native place for more than 26 years. The diseases of the petitioner have only been disclosed only after he was transferred on 18.8.2012. The respondent has still every doubt that the petitioner is not really suffering from multiple diseases for which he has claimed for. It has also been asserted by the respondent that the petitioner had refused to accept the promotion order after enjoying all the benefits of promotion after more than three years and despite having been relieved, the non-joining of the petitioner at the present place of posting is a clear cut indiscipline and disobedience, whereas, it was verbally indicated to him that after joining