The main legal point established is that the transfer policy of the Corporation is non-enforceable and does not confer any absolute right upon the employee. The regulations give the competent authority the discretion to transfer employees based on work requirements and administrative needs.

ORDER :

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the transfer order dated 19.06.2020 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Divisional Office, Ludhiana from Divisional Office, Chandigarh on promotion as Divisional Manager; and also quashing of the decision of the authorities dated 14.07.2020 (Annexure P-9) whereby the representation and notice dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-8) moved by the petitioner, was rejected by the respondents.

2. The brief fact giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was an employee with the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. On 01.09.1996, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer. Thereafter the petitioner was further promoted as Administrative Officer in the year 2003. As per the further line of promotion, the petitioner was later on promoted as Assistant Divisional Manager and was transferred to Divisional Office, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, where she remained posted up to June 2013. In July, 2013 the petitioner was transferred to Divisional Office, Chandigarh, where she had been working continuously. As per the work, conduct and seniority of the petitioner the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Divisional Manager vide office order dated 19.06.2020. Consequent of this promotion, the petitioner was ordered to be posted to Divisional Office, Ludhiana vide another order dated 19.06.2020, whereby several hundred employees were ordered to be transferred by the respondents. Vide this posting order; many officers/employees were transferred by the respondent-Corporation. The name of the petitioner figured at serial No.227, posting her as Manager (MASH), Divisional Office, Ludhiana. The petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 04.10.2019. Therefore, relying upon the Transfer and Mobility policy of the respondent- Corporation, which provides for non-transfer of an employee after attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.06.2020. However, the said representation has also been rejected by the respondent-Corporation. Since the petitioner was required to join her new place of posting, failing which the promotion would have been withdrawn by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner joined the new place of posting on 06.07.2020. It is thereafter that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in August, 2020.

3. While arguing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Clause 6 of Transfer and Mobility (of Class-I Officers) Instructions, 2016; to contend that since the petitioner has attained the age of 58 years, therefore, the petitioner could not have been transferred from her present place of posting. It is further submitted by the counsel that there are some other officers who have been retained at the same station even after their promotion to the next post. The petitioner has even cited two examples of the officers who have been promoted like the petitioner and have been retained at their present place of postings. Hence, it is submitted by the counsel that the petitioner has been discriminated against and that she should have been retained at Divisional Office, Chandigarh even after her promotion as Divisional Manager. Carrying forward the argument, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the transfer policy of the corporation provides for transfer of its officers, however, Clause 6 of the said policy creates a special provision. The language of this provision also is mandatory in nature because it uses the words ‘shall’ not be transferred on promotion. The counsel has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Moti Lal Ghelabhai Versus Jagan Nagar, 1985 AIR SC 709; J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. and others, 1981 AIR SC 1170 and Dilawar Singh Versus Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh & another, 2005(12) SCC 709 and a