Employee transfer policies should account for imminent retirement and family circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Writ Appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 has been filed being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 22.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No.26616/2024 whereby Ext.P1 order dated 15.10.2024 has been assailed in the Writ Petition, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Superintendent in Pension and Audit Department of the Chief OfÏce of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The appellant was initially appointed as 20.11.1990 as Lower Division Clerk and later promoted to the post of Superintendent on 05.12.2012. The respondents issued the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 by which the appellant was transferred from Chief OfÏce from Thiruvananthapuram to Malappuram.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is in blatant violation of the transfer policy. It also violates the terms and conditions of Chapter IV of the general guidelines regarding transfer. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that according to the transfer policy, clause 9.02 gives protection to those who are having less than two years of service left before superannuation. As on today, the appellant is having only one year to retire. Learned counsel further stated that the situation of the family is pathetic. The husband of the appellant has met with an accident and his affairs are being looked after by the appellant. The transfer would affect the entire family, especially when there is no one to look after the husband. The authorities ought to have followed the transfer guidelines because it cannot be said that those are to be applied on the basis of whims and fancies of the respondent authorities. The Apex Court in various cases have quashed the order of transfer particularly where there is less than two years of service left before superannuation. In the present case, the appellant is to retire within one year from today. Therefore, disturbing the entire family at the fag end of the service career is absolutely unjustified. The learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground that the transfer is an incidence of service and that the employee has no legal right in this behalf. The impugned order dated 15.10.2024 as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the Writ Appeal allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the Writ Petition. The authorities have issued transfer owing to administrative exigency. Moreover the transfer policy is in nature of guidelines. There is no statutory violation of any rules or malafide has been pleaded. In view of the aforesaid this Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Smt. Ummul Fida, learned Standing counsel for the KSRTC.

6. We are of the view that though it is a settled legal position that transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right to continue at one place or at the place of her choice. However, looking to the fact that the appellant has less than one year to retire from service, in such circumstances, taking into consideration, the clause 9.02 of the transfer policy, which provides that transfer shall not be effected when only two years or less is left for superannuation, the appeal deserves to be allowed.