JUDGMENT

A.S. NAIDU, J. — An interesting point is raised for adjudication in the present writ petition, i.e., as to whether the petitioners, who are Class-IV employees can be transferred outside the State.

2. The petitioners were initially appointed in the estab¬lishment of Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd., in short, ‘MITCO’, which was a fully owned subsidiary of MMTC Ltd. In the year 1992, MITCo became economically crippled and sick. Thereaf¬ter, the matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, in short, ‘BIFR’ as per the provisions of the SICA Act, 1985. After prolonged hearing, BIFR came to the conclusion that it was no more possible to rehabilitate MITCo on its own. Therefore, it was decided for amalgamation of MITCo with MMTC Ltd. Consequently, MITCo merged with MMTC Ltd. with effect from 14.4.1994 and the same became a division of MMTC. After merger, the employees working in MITCo were treated as the em¬ployees of MMTC under the scheme.

3. After such merger, it is submitted that the petition¬ers discharged their duties under MMTC Ltd. While matter stood thus, by order dated 24.6.2009, petitioner No.1 was transferred to Cochin and petitioner No.2 was transferred to Chennai. The said transfer order is assailed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that in consonance with the service regulation of MMTC, Class-IV employees are not akin to transfer and as such, the order under Annexure-1 transferring the petitioners to far off places like Cochin and Chennai is contrary to the service condi¬tions. The petitioners have prayed to quash the order of transfer under Annexure-1.

4. After receiving notice, opposite parties have appeared and filed counter affidavit. The fact that MITCo merged with MMTC is not in dispute. Relying upon the relevant portion of BIFR scheme, the opposite parties submitted that MMTC has a right to exercise option if warranted to transfer such number of workers of the erstwhile MITCo to any other units of MMTC as may be deemed necessary. Accordingly, the opposite parties who were found to be surplus at their present place of posting were trans¬ferred. In support of such statement, numbers of documents are annexed to the counter affidavit. In short, according to the opposite parties, they have a right to transfer the petitioners to any other unit in India if no work is available at their place of posting.

5. Admittedly, both the petitioners are at present posted at Paradip under the MMTC. The petitioners have also filed re¬joinder repudiating the stand taken in the writ petition. The opposite parties in addition to the counter affidavit have also filed additional counter affidavit enclosing several other documents in support of their stand that the management of MMTC has a right to transfer the petitioners, who were found to be surplus staff at Barsuan Branch to any other place in the State.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties diligent¬ly. We have also perused the documents attached to the pleadings meticulously. There is no dispute that both the petitioners were the erstwhile employees of MITCo and in consonance with the scheme framed by BIFR, the said organization has merged with MMTC. After merger though they are considered to be the employees of MMTC, but then as per the scheme, they are guided by the service conditions of MITCo so far as the same is not detrimental to their interest. Learned counsel for both parties strenuously placed before this Court different clauses of the agreement in support of their arguments. According to the petitioners, the order of transfer from Paradip to Cochin so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned and to Chennai so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, is not only meant to harsh them but also is otherwise contrary to the procedure agreed to be followed by the management of MMTC. It is submitted that the petitioners are low paid em¬ployees, they are getting a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards their salary. In