S K JOHAR Vs. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the transfer order dated 22.8.1998 transferring the petitioner as Sr. Manager Engineering on promotion to a place called Arvi in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner is now a Senior Manager Engineering. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the order of transfer is against the Policy of Transfer issued by the respondent on 3.1.1996. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, the learned Counsel for the the petitioner had be dally be transferred. It on promotion inspite of three transfers an officer shall not be transferred and if there is a vacancy in the promotion post in the place where he is serving at the time of promotion. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vipin Sanghi submitted the fact that the petitioner has undergone three transfers is not disputed. While transferring the petitioner on promotion as Senior Manager Engineering, the learned Counsel Mr. Vipin Sanghi submitted that the juniors to the petitioner who are also promoted along with the petitioner are retained in Delhi and this act of the respondent is contrary to the transfer policy. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Harvinder Singh submitted that the petitioner had worked in the Northern Region for more than 23 years, he was promoted as Senior Manager and as per his request he was given about a year time to go to the transferred place and therefore, as Senior Manager Engineering, he was transferred to Arvi w.e.f. 1.4.1998. The petitioner made representation on 10.2.1998 for being retained in Delhi. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Harvinder Singh submitted that for the first time having regard to the exigencies of service and for giving sufficient experience to the officer, the petitioner was transferred to Arvi station. The respondent had acted in accordance with the Transfer Policy. The learned Counsel Mr. Harvinder Singh relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court and submitted that the petitioner cannot seek to enforce the transfer policy, which had been issued just for the purpose of guidance and it is not enforceable. The learned Counsel Mr. Harvinder Singh referred to Union of India & Others v. H.N. Kirtani (1989) 3 SCC 445; Shilpi Base (Mrs.) and Others v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; and Union of India & Ors. v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357. The learned Counsel for the respondent also referred to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in Union of India and Another v. Col. D.B. Bhide, 1997 LAB. I.C. 2838. The learned Counsel also relied upontheofGujaratHighCourtreportedin Jayantilal Purshottamdas Panchat v. Commissioner of Motor Transport, 1997 LLR 918.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vipin Sanghi submitted that the petitioner is an officer in the Union of Officers and it is because of that the respondent had transferred the petitioner out of Delhi retaining in Delhi the Juniors who are also promoted along with him.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Harvinder Singh submitted that no doubt juniors are retained in Delhi but all those juniors have served in Delhi and the Northern Region in less number of years than the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent in the interests of administration taking into account the period of service of the officers, the transfer of the petitioner was ordered.