Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1143
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
G. Janardhanan & Others
Versus
The Secretary to The Gov. of India Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others
Writ petition Nos.15741, 11584, 11596, 11603, 16246 of 2012 & MP.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2012
Decided On : 28-02-2013
For the Petitioners:S. Ramaswamyrajarajan, C. Venkatesan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S. Seethalakhsmi, Senior Panel Counsel.
Limited court interference in transfer orders for civilian employees in the armed forces, as per the Army Act and relevant circulars.
Headnote:
Transfer - Civilian Employees - Army Act, 1950 - Circular of 1997 - Circular dated 21.9.2005 - Section 4 of the Army Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, civilian drivers in the Army Supply Core, challenged their posting orders to far away places, citing a 1997 circular and alleging violation of the 1996 communication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' right to challenge the transfer orders was limited, as civilian employees in the armed forces have limited scope for interference by the courts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the circulars and communications in determining the validity of the transfer orders and the extent of the court's jurisdiction in reviewing such orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction or malafides, the court has limited power to review transfer orders for civilian employees in the armed forces.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court declined to interfere with the transfer orders, citing the limited scope for court interference in matters concerning civilian employees in the armed forces.
1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are working as drivers in the Transport Platoon attached to the Army Supply Core. At present, the petitioners are under the control of Officer Commanding 756 (Independent) Transport Platoon. By an order dated 5.3.2012, the fourth respondent gave posting orders to the petitioners posting them to various places giving the date of movement as 30.4.2012 After Noon.
2. The order of posting of civilian persons relates to as many as 136 persons in ASC Records (South). The orders itself refer to the order issued by the Head Quarters viz., Ministry of Defence, Army letter dated 21.9.2005 as a source of authority. The petitioner alleging that as much as the order of transferring them to far away places is contrary to the circulation issued by the Army Headquarters letter dated 11.12.1996 and circulated by communication dated 21.1.1997, filed present writ petitions by placing reliance on paragraph 3(b) of the communication which is stated as follows:-
"3(b) Units controlled employees cannot be trfd to other units/ stns on Adm grounds or in exigencies of service. Only civpers borne on a common roster on zonal basis can be tfrd on adm grounds within the same zone and on command basis can be within the command. Those who are on all India basis roster can be tfrd anywhere in the country where the cadre post exists."
3. While ordering notice in the writ petitions, interim stay was granted in WP.No. 11584 and 11596 of 2012 on 24.4.2012 and respondents were directed to file counter. Interim stay was granted in WP.No. 11693 of 2012 on 25.4.2012 and in WP.No. 15741 of 2012 on 6.7.2012. In WP.No. 16246 of 2012, interim stay was granted on 23.7.2012. Aggrieved by the grant of interim stay, the fourth respondent filed vacate stay petitions together with supporting counter affidavits dated 23.11.2012.
4. Heard Mr.S.Ramaswamyrajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.Nos. WP Nos.15741 of 2012, 11584 of 2012, 11596 of 2012 and 11603 of 2012 and Mr.C.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No. 16246 of 2012 as well as Mrs.S.Seethalakshmi, learned Special Panel Counsel Central Government, for the respondents herein.
5. The contention raised by the petitioners as found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions are as follows:-
The petitioner's children are studying in Chennai and they have to take care of the family. The petitioners are Civilian Motor Vehicle Drivers appointed under the Army Act, 1950 in the respondents Corps. As per Circular of the year 1997, the petitioners cannot be shifted on compulsory turn over to a place other than the Command / Zone in which they are working and as far as possible they should be accommodated near their choice station to the extent possible. The respondents ought to have prepared common roaster and according to the said roaster, persons coming under zonal basis can be transferred on administrative grounds within the same zone and on command basis can be within the command and those who are on All India basis roaster can be transferred anywhere in the country. Since such roaster have not been prepared, transferring the petitioners to far away places is unwarranted.
6. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that one Sardar Mal Yadav, who has given posting, filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The said O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the said petitioner to appeal to the department and beyond that no such relief was granted. In each of the affidavits, it was indicated the previous circumstances in which the petitioners have served and also the length of service put in the present station. It is however stated that civilian presently working in the Army Supply Corps are governed by Corps Order. In the year 1997, an amendment to above Corps order was issued by the Head Office of the Ministry of Defence by letter dated 28.11.1997 stating that as far
