Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B.R. Sarangi, J.
Krushna Chandra Barik - Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 12146 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2019
M/s. S.K. Mishra, J. Pradhan, S. Rout, P.S. Mohanty and S.K. Biswal, Advocates, for the Appellant; M/s. Ashok Kumar Mohanty and S.K. Sahoo, Advocates, for the Respondent
Cases Referred
Gujurat Electricity Board vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SLR 684 SC
In Re. Racal Communications Ltd., (1980) 2 All ER 634 HL
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Niranjan Dash vs. State of Orissa, (2014) II OLR 844
Padfield vs. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1968) 1 All E.R. 694
Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532
State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486
State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165
Travancore Rayons Ltd. vs. The Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 862
Uma Charan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915
Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87
Union of India vs. S.L. Abas, AIR 1993 SC 2444
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees, under the Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers, to a desired place of posting when family members are suffering from chronic illnesses, and the requirement for reasoned decision-making in administrative actions.
Headnote:
Transfer - Employment - Life Insurance Corporation of India - Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers - Clauses 3, 5(a)(d), 6, 6(a), 12(g) - The court discussed the Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers and its applicability to the petitioner, highlighting the provisions related to the normal period of posting, maximum tenure, and transfers based on government Oms, particularly on medical grounds. The court emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to a desired place of posting due to his wife's chronic illness, as per the policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager at Life Insurance Corporation of India, sought to quash his transfer order from Bhubaneswar to Khurda, citing his wife's chronic illness and his own medical condition. The court considered the applicability of the Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers and the petitioner's entitlement to a desired place of posting due to medical grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's transfer was not in compliance with the Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers, emphasizing the need for a desired place of posting for employees with family members suffering from chronic illnesses. The court also noted that the rejection of the petitioner's representation lacked proper reasoning and was therefore quashed.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to a desired place of posting under the Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers, the validity of the transfer order in light of the petitioner's wife's chronic illness, and the rejection of the petitioner's representation without proper reasoning.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers, emphasizing the entitlement of employees with family members suffering from chronic illnesses to a desired place of posting. The court also highlighted the requirement for reasoned decision-making in rejecting representations from employees.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation and remitted the matter back to the Senior Divisional Manager of L.I.C. of India to reconsider the representation in accordance with the Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers, with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
JUDGMENT
B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who is working as Branch Manager in Life Insurance Corporation of India, has filed this application to quash the office order dated 07.06.2018 in Annexure-5, pertaining to his transfer from Bhubaneswar to Khurda And consequential order dated 08.06.2018 in Annexure-8 rejecting his representation. He further seeks for direction to opposite party nos. 1 and 2 post him in Bhubaneswar municipal limits where medical facilities for bipolar psychiatric patients are available.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, after Completion of his education, joined as an Assistant in the Office Service Department of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'L.I.C. of India') at Kendrapara on 05.02.1993, being successful in the entrance examination. On 13.09.2002, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and posted at Halidia in Howrah district of West Bengal. Subsequently, he was transferred to the marketing side of the L.I.C. of India and posted as the Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) at Khatra Branch under Asansol Division in West Bengal on 30.08.2004. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Branch Manager in the cadre of Administrative Officer and posted at Bhubaneswar Division on 16.05.2009.
2.1 The daughter of the petitioner was prosecuting her study in Bachelor of Occupational Therapy at Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation Training & Research at Olatpur under the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment Government of India. The wife of the petitioner, being a psychiatric patient, became seriously ill and developed suicidal tendency, for which his daughter left the said course at Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation Training & Research at Olatpur and prosecuted her studies in Bachelor of Bio-Technology at Orissa University of Agriculture Technology (OUAT), Bhubaneswar, so that both petitioner and his daughter can keep a constant vigil on her (wife of the petitioner). As the condition of the wife of the petitioner, since last 10 years, became chronic and acute, she remained on constant medication and is being treated at various leading mental hospitals of Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. With this misery, the petitioner, while continuing at Branch Office, P & GS Unit, Bhubaneswar, vide order dated 07.06.2018, was transferred to Branch Office, Khurda, which is around 30 kms from the place of his residence. Indicating his difficulties, the petitioner submitted a representation on 08.06.2018 praying to retain him at his present place of posting, as his wife was a Neuro psychiatric patient and he himself met an accident on 20.04.2015 and suffered severe damage to his spine and hip, for which he had been advised to go for endospine surgery. But his representation was rejected, vide order dated 08.06.2018, without assigning any reason. Hence this application.
3. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner from the present place of posting, i.e., Bhubaneswar to Khurda, without considering medical emergency of the petitioner as well his wife, is in violation of Transfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officers formulated by the L.I.C. of India. It is further contended that the order dated 08.06.2018 rejecting the representation of the petitioner has also been passed without assigning any reason. Therefore, the order of transfer dated 07.06.2018 in Annexure-5, so far as it relates to the petitioner, and consequential order dated 08.06.2018 in Annexure-8 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same are liable to be quashed.
4. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner, having consciously accepted an employment, which has "Pan India Transferability" in terms of L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 h
