Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2925
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
R. Sivakumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.30658 of 2024 and WMP(MD) Nos.2285, 25739 and 25742 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Mahaboob Athiff.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.C. Herold Singh.
Transfer orders issued in bad faith or with punitive intent can be quashed, emphasizing the need for administrative actions to be free from mala fide motives.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that a transfer order executed with mala fide intention or punitive nature can be interfered with, despite general non-interference by courts regarding such orders. (Paras 7 and 8)
(B) Employment Law - Nature of Transfer - The court ruled that transfer is a condition and incident of service, but must not be executed in bad faith or as punishment. (Paras 7 and 8)
(C) Administrative Law - Abuse of Power - The court must intervene if a transfer order is found to be arbitrary and issued with the intent to harass an employee. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as Non ITI Helper, had risen through the ranks within the organization and was wrongfully transferred during medical leave—a transfer alleged to punish him for filing a contempt petition. (Paras 1, 4, and 6)
Findings of Court:
The impugned transfer order was quashed, as it was found to be punitive and made with mala fide intention. (Paras 8 and 9)
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer order was punitive, executed in bad faith, and whether the court should intervene. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that while transfers are typically administrative decisions, those conducted with mala fide intent warrant judicial intervention to prevent misuse of authority. (Paras 7 and 8)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer order's legitimacy questioned regarding its punitive nature. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner’s employment history and academic qualifications. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding the legality and intention behind the transfer order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's analysis of mala fide intentions in the transfer order. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. transfer deemed punitive and liable to be quashed. (Para 8) |
| 6. writ petition allowed with quashing of the impugned transfer order. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the second respondent in Parvai.Niruvagam/A1/11071/ 2024 dated 26.11.2024.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(I) Initially, the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation as Non ITI Helper (Tyrena) on 02.11.1995. The said appointment was made on temporary basis. Subsequently, the said appointment was made permanent vide order dated 23.09.1996 and the said post was upgraded to the post of Senior Helper and it was re-designated on 13.05.2010 as Senior Attender. In the month of November 2007, the petitioner completed his Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications and in the year 2009, he completed his Post Graduate in Master of Computer applications and in the year 2014, he completed his master degree in Business Administration. As the petitioner has acquired Master Degree in Computer Applications and other degree relating to the Computer Courses, the second respondent by order dated 16.02.2016 had re-designated the petitioner from Senior Attender to Programmer with some conditions. Thereafter, on 23.02.2019, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents stating that the post of Programmer is equivalent to that of the Computer Programmer and requested him to fix the pay scale on par with other similarly placed persons and that the petitioner is also entitled to same scale of pay on par with the Computer Programmer. But the second respondent passed the order on 24.12.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner against the said order the petitioner has filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.737 of 2020 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 09.10.2020 and the impugned order there is quashed.
(ii) Against the said order, the respondent Corporation preferred a writ appeal in WA(MD)No.678 of 2021. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.07.2021. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the respondents preferred an Appeal before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8423 of 2022 and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 22.03.2023. Thereafter, the respondents did not comply the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, he filed a contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.764 of 2023. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation appeared before the Court as per the order of the Court and sought time to comply the order.
(iii) Since the petitioner filed contempt petition against the respondent management, they accused him with false accusations and false charges resulting in the second respondent issued punishment order imposing stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect. Thereafter, due to serious heath problems, the petitioner applied for medical leave from 14.11.2024 to 05.12.2024 and the same was sanctioned by the second respondent. Thereafter, on conduct of medical examination, Doctors opined a Oesophageal problem need to be monitored frequently and advised to take rest under medical supervision. Hence, the petitioner on 04.12.2024 sent a representation to the second respondent to extend the medial leave till 02.01.2025. Without considering the same, by proceedings dated 07.12.2024 directed the petitioner to join duty though the petitioner is having eligible medical leaves for more days. On 07.12.2024, the petitioner admitted in the hospital due to ill-health.
(iv) In the interregnum period, the petiti
