Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3150

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Aniruddha Roy, J
Sandip Kumar Bardhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
W.P.A. 24352 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Saibal Acharya, Adv., Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Mrinmoyee Roy Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Ansar Mandal, Ld. AGP, Mr. Tanweer J. Mandal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Biplab Guha, Adv., Ms. Amrita Tiwari, Adv.

The employer's discretion in transferring a contractual employee must be exercised judiciously and cannot be arbitrary; the court can intervene if proven tainted with malice.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Transfer of contractual employee - Discretion of employer in transfer matters - The petitioner, a Field Junior Engineer engaged on a contractual basis, challenges his frequent transfers by the employer. The court recognizes the discretion of an employer in transfer matters but asserts that this discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily or in a colourable manner. The court quashed the impugned transfer order dated May 22, 2023, as the period between the last two transfers was deemed unreasonable and not exercised judiciously. (Paras 16, 18, 19)

(B) Malice or arbitrariness in transfer decision - The court reiterates that if a transfer is found to be arbitrary or tainted with malice, it can be struck down under Article 226. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged under a contract and has undergone multiple transfers within a short period, raising questions about the frequency and grounds of these transfers. He argues the last transfer was made improperly without sufficient cause.

Findings of Court:
The court determines that the last transfer, given its proximity to the previous one, lacks a judicious basis and surpasses an acceptable exercise of managerial discretion, leading to its quashing.

Issues: Whether the employer's discretion in transferring a contractual employee was exercised properly and without malice. Was the petitioner inappropriately transferred within a short period?

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the transfer to be arbitrary due to the undue haste and lack of justified reasoning on the part of the employer, thus interfering under Article 226.

Result: The impugned transfer order dated May 22, 2023, stands quashed.

Table of Content
1. details about the petitioner's employment and transfers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding the legality of the transfer. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13)
3. discussion of the legal standards for employment transfers. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court's final decision quashing the transfer order. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

Reserved on : June 11, 2025 Judgment on : July 10, 2025 Aniruddha Roy, J.

FACTS :

1. By virtue of a letter of engagement dated March 26, 2010, annexure- P2 at page 17 to the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged as a Field Junior Engineer of Purbasthali-II Block for a period of twelve months on contractual remuneration basis. The petitioner was posted for the said post for Sarva Shiksha Mission work as would be evident and posting letter dated March 19, 2010, annexure- P1 at page 16 to the writ petition. The engagement of the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions of the contract, was extended by a memo dated March 01, 2011, annexure-P3 at page 18 to the writ petition, until the age of attainment of 60 years. The petitioner was entitled to receive as one time gratuity of Rs. 1,00,000/- if 10 years of service is provided by him to Sarva Shiksha Mission. The consolidated remuneration was Rs. 16,076/-

per month.

2. In July 2012, the petitioner was transferred to Galsi-I Block. The petitioner accepted the same. Again by virtue of memo dated June 6, 2016 the petitioner was transferred from Galsi-I to Durgapur M.C. with the additional charge of Durgapur Faridpur, annexure- P4 at page 19 to the writ petition.

3. The petitioner then by virtue of a memo dated June 20, 2018 was again transferred from Durgapur Faridpur to Kansa with an additional charge of Durgapur Municipal Corporation (MC), annexure- P5 at page

20 to the writ petition.

4. By virtue of a further memo dated October 12, 2022 the petitioner was again transferred from Kansa Block to Pandabeswar Block Headquarter. The petitioner is a resident of Raniganj, annexure- P6 at page 21 to the writ petition.

5. Again, by virtue of a memo dated January 13, 2023, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Purbasthali-II with an additional charge of Durgapur Municipal Corporation (MC), annexure- P7 at page 22 to the writ petition. The petitioner has come to learn from a Government memo dated March 13, 2020, annexure- P9 at page 29 to the writ petition, that there is no specific policy for transfer of any category of staff under Paschim Banga Samagra Shiksha Mission (‘for short’ PBSSM).

6. Then again by a further memo dated May 22, 2023, the petitioner was transferred from Pandabeswar Block to Purbasthali-II on the alleged ground of public service.

7. The petitioner submitted representations from time to time but the same have not been considered. Challenging the said last impugned transfer order dated May 22, 2023, annexure- P10 at page 30 to the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing of the same.

8. Pursuant to the directions made by the Coordinate Bench, the respondents have filed its report in the form of affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 4 to which the petitioner has filed its exception in the form of affidavit. SUBMISSIONS :

9. Mr. Saibal Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, referring to the engagement letter of the petitioner, that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis. The contract between the petitioner and the State employer for his engagement does not provide for any provision for transfer. The contractual employment being a result of a contract, is only abide by the subject contract between the employee and its employer and not otherwise.

10. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner then submits that since engagement, the petitioner was transferred frequently from one place to another and the duration between the last two transfers was of 4 or 5 months. The transfer order dated January 13, 2023, annexure- P1 at page 22 to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3150

CALCUTTA HIGH COURTAniruddha Roy, JSandip Kumar Bardhan – AppellantVersusThe State of West Bengal & Ors. – RespondentW.P.A. 24352 of 2024

The employer's discretion in transferring a contractual employee must be exercised judiciously and cannot be arbitrary; the court can intervene if proven tainted with malice.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Aniruddha Roy, J
Sandip Kumar Bardhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
W.P.A. 24352 of 2024