Transfer of service is an incident of service and can be made in the interest of administration, unless it is mala fide or in violation of statutory rules.

Heard Sri S. K. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R. D. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this writ petitioner the order dated 20-11-1999 and 25-11- 1999 (Annexure Nos. 4 and 5) to the writ petition passed by the Managing Director of U. P. State Sugar Corporation and Executive Director of U. P. State Sugar Corporation respectively have been challenged. According to the petitioner he was working as workshop labourer in Ghatampur Sugar Co. Ltd. Kanpur Nagar for the last several years as a regular employee and having satisfactory service. According to him an application on 10-8- 1999 was submitted by him to pay his salary for the period 16-6- 1999 to 31-6-1999 which could not be considered by the Executive Director of Ghatampur Sugar Co. Ltd. Again the petitioner approached on 5/6-11-1999 for disbursement of salary and bonus and on the same day the petitioner was issued a show cause notice to explain the hindrance created by him in the disbursement of the salary to the workers of the respondent unit. Therefore, he was asked to explain the indiscipline created by him. Keeping in view of this reply and documents the petitioners service has been transferred by an order dated 20-11-1999. According to the petitioner the service of the petitioner has been transferred mala fide in order to punish him. Counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit, supplementary-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been filed. Sri R. D. Khare, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the service of the petitioner was transferred in the interest of administration and not by way of punishment transferred from his present posting to Sugar Factory Nawabganj union on the same scale and same status. According to the respondent the petitioner cannot be punished as transfer is the exigency of service and in the interest of administration he could be shifted to other unit as the respondents empowered to transfer. According to para 5 of the counter-affidavit transfer of an employee/ workmen from one unit of the Corporation to the other has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in special appeal No. 481 of 1993 wherein this Court considered the matter in great deal and had taken a view that transfer is an incident of service and both in view of Section 26 (2) of the U. P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 and U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1988, as well as Rule 27 the Corporation was competent to transfer even a workmen from one unit to the other.

3. In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1955, their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 4 of the said AIR):

" (4 ). . . . We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges that transfer is always understood and construed as an incident of service. The words `or other conditions of service in juxtaposition to the preceding words `denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension in Rule 19 (1) (a) must be construed ejusdem generis. Any alteration in the conditions of service must result in prejudice to the Government Servant and some disadvantage touching of his pay, allowances, pension, seniority, promotion, leave etc. It is well understood that transfer of a Government Servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore, does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a Government Servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government Servant can claim to remain in a particular place of in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post. . . . "

4. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 532, their