Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Dr. Pashupati Nath Priyadarshi, son of Sri Suresh Paswan - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 7295 of 2023 with W.P. (S) No. 7303 of 2023 with W.P. (S) No. 7343 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2024
[TRANSFER] - [EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION] - [Central Administrative Act, 1985; DoPT Guidelines; ESIC Transfer Policy] - [The court examined the legality of transfer orders issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) against the backdrop of its own transfer policy and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines. The court found that the transfer policy, while significant, did not carry statutory force, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for an interim stay. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of transfer orders and the absence of any apparent error in the tribunal's refusal to grant interim relief, ultimately upholding the transfer decisions.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, all employees of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), challenged transfer orders issued by ESIC that they claimed violated the organization's transfer policy and DoPT guidelines regarding spouse postings. They argued that their transfers were made without considering their preferences and the stipulated procedures, leading to personal hardships.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal's refusal to grant interim stay on the transfer orders was justified. It held that the transfer policy did not have mandatory statutory force and that the petitioners did not establish a prima facie case for an interim stay. The court emphasized the prerogative of the employer in transfer matters and the lack of irreparable harm that would result from the transfers.
Issues: Whether the transfer orders issued by ESIC violated its own transfer policy and DoPT guidelines, and whether the tribunal erred in refusing to grant an interim stay on these orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that transfer orders are within the employer's discretion and that the transfer policy, while important, does not confer a vested right to employees. The court also highlighted the necessity of demonstrating a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting interim relief, which the petitioners failed to do.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, with the court upholding the tribunal's decision and directing that the matter be resolved expeditiously by the tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Since similar issued are involved in these three writ petitions, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together for disposal.
Prayer in W.P. (S) No. 7295 of 2023
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 885 of 2023, by which the tribunal refused to grant interim stay in respect of order dated 20.05.2023 of respondent-ESIC transferring the applicant from ESIC Hospital, Adityapur to DCBO, Daltonganj.
Prayer in W.P. (S) No. 7303 of 2023
3. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 883 of 2023, by which the tribunal refused to grant interim stay in respect of order dated 20.05.2023 of respondent-ESIC transferring the applicant from ESIC Hospital, Ranchi to ESIC Hospital, Rourkela.
Prayer in W.P. (S) No. 7343 of 2023
4. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 884 of 2023, by which the tribunal refused to grant interim stay in respect of order dated 20.05.2023 of ESIC transferring the applicant from ESIC Hospital, Adityapur to ESIC Hospital, Ranchi.
Brief facts of the case in W.P. (S) No. 7295 of 2023
5. The petitioner- Dr. Pushupati Nath Priyadarshi joined Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on 10.11.2016 as Insurance Medical Officer, Grade-II and at present is posted at ESIC Hospital, Adityapur as IMO Grade-I.
6. The respondent-Employees’ State Insurance Corporation came with a Transfer/Posting Policy on the subject matter ‘Transfer/posting policy for clinical postings of doctors in ESI Corporation’ on 20.06.2022, according to which ESIC staffs were asked to submit five options for the annual transfer as per his/her choice. Accordingly, the applicant mentioned ESIC Adityapur, R.O. Ranchi, DCBO Ghatshila, DCBO Hazaribagh and ESIC Model Hospital, Ranchi as his options priority-wise. But he was transferred to DCBO, Daltonganj vide transfer order dated 20.05.2023 de hors of five station of his choice violating the policy decision, by way of ESIC circular dated 20.06.2022 taken by the respondent-ESIC, of completion of maximum extended period of nine years at one station i.e., ESIC Hospital, Adityapur. Being aggrieved he submitted a representation before the authority concerned as also approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No. 472 of 2023. The original application was disposed of vide order dated 21.09.2023 with direction upon the respondent-authorities to keep the transfer order in abeyance till a decision is taken on applicant’s representation. However, the representation of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2023.
7. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 885 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2023 refusing to grant interim stay in respect of order dated 20.05.2023 of respondent-ESIC by which the applicant was transferred from ESIC Hospital, Adityapur to DCBO, Daltonganj, hence, the instant writ petition.
Brief facts of the case in W.P. (S) No. 7303 of 2023
8. The petitioner-Dr. Anita Kumari, joined Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on 30.03.2012 as Insurance Medical Officer, Grade-II at ESIC Hospital, Adityapur, Jharkhand and at present is posted as Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at ESIC Hospital, Namkum, Ranchi.
9. The respondent-ESIC came with a Transfer/Posting Policy on 20.06.2022, according to which ESIC staffs were asked to submit five options for the annual transfer. Accordingly, the applicant mentioned ESIC Model Hospital, Namkum, Ranchi R.O. Ranchi, DCBO, Hazaribagh, ESIC Hospital Adityapur and ESIC Model Hospital, Rourkela.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pathology at RIMS Ranchi but t
AI
The court established that while transfer policies are significant, they do not possess statutory force, and employees do not have a vested right to remain at a particular posting indefinitely. The d....
Transfer order quashed for violating ESIC policy and DoP&T guidelines on spouse postings; central govt employee entitled to consideration near state govt spouse's station subject to vacancies, with r....
Interlocutory relief in the form of stay of transfer policies is a matter of judicial discretion and transfer orders are ordinarily not to be interfered with unless actuated by mala fides.
Transfer orders quashed for arbitrary selection without criterion, policy violation on tenure, perfunctory grievance consideration ignoring points, and non-compliance with directions for reasoned NLC....
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
