Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 15540
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ
THE TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
R. AGILA – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 (@ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13070-13075/2022)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Santhosh K, Adv., Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv., Mr. S. Manikandan, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar A, Adv., Mr. P Ashok, Adv., Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR, Ms. Bindu K Nair, Adv.
Transfer orders in public service must be complied with unless legally stayed; unauthorized absence does not justify salary claims.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Transfer of employees - Transfer is an exigency of service, and employees must comply with transfer orders unless stayed - Employees are entitled to remedies but cannot refuse to join their transferred posts - Court emphasized the importance of maintaining public interest and administrative efficiency. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5)
(B) Appeals - The appeals by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University against the High Court's orders quashing transfer orders were allowed, with directions regarding salary payments for certain respondents. (Paras 9, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from the dismissal of writ appeals regarding transfer orders of employees, who had initially challenged their transfers but later complied and joined their posts. (Paras 9, 10)
Findings of Court:
The Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed the clearing of dues for certain respondents while denying salary for periods of unauthorized absence for others. (Paras 19)
Issues: Whether employees could refuse to join transferred positions and claim salaries during unauthorized absence. (Paras 4, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that transfer is inherent in public service, and employees must comply unless there is a legal stay, emphasizing the need for administrative efficiency. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer orders must be complied with to maintain public service efficiency. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. transfer is an inherent part of public service obligations. (Para 3 , 8) |
| 3. employees eventually complied with transfer orders after initial challenges. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court allowed appeals and directed salary payments for certain respondents. (Para 19) |
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant matter is a typical case in an array of service law litigation where an employee gets transferred by the administrative authorities to another place, however instead of joining the new place of posting, they challenge the said order of transfer while also demanding the salary for the period they remained in unauthorised absence. At the outset, we deem it important to highlight that our chief condemnation in such matters is not to the said challenge to transfer orders, rather the act of refusing to join the new place of posting while the legal or administrative battle is underway.
3. It is established as a part of service law jurisprudence that transfer is an exigency of service. As such, when a person becomes an employee of the Government, the incidence of transfer becomes inherent in the terms of service unless it is specifically barred under certain provisions governing conditions of service.
4. Under such terms and conditions of service, an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer.
5. The focal consideration behind it is that the intent of transfer is to fill up certain vacancies at the new place of posting and when the transferred employees fail to join such posts, the said vacancy would continue and the goal of providing optimal service at full capacity remains defeated. An even worse situation would arise when the authorities, while the challenge to such transfer is underway, would have to employ other individuals to fill up such vacancies and has to ultimately spend from both the pockets by providing salary to the employee who is actually delivering such service as well as to the employee who has remained absent from service unauthorizedly. It cannot be ignored that such a situation would result in nothing but burning a hole in the pocket of public exchequer, lead to excessive financial burden on the Government institutions, and would fundamentally jeopardize public interest.
6. It is not uncommon to see employees who challenge such orders of transfer before various forums, extending the litigation to several years, while choosing to not join the service and still seeking full salary, and often citing medical conditions as a ground for such inability to join. It is of utmost importance that, while the legal challenge runs its course, the needs of administration are treated paramount in comparison to the inconvenience faced by the employees in cases of transfer. In this regard, the Government employers should also take stern measures against such employees who fail to join the new places of posting without any rationale or an order of stay being in place.
7. We also find it relevant to quote here a judgment of this Court on the same subject in Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat , (2009) 11 SCC 678 “16. The legal position has been crystallised in a number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies.
17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant's transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the
