JAGDISH CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. HMT WATCHES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners and Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) SINCE the issue raised in all these writ petitions is common, all these writ petitions are being decided together by a common judgment. The petitioners have been sent on transfer to different places outside Uttarakhand vide order dated 1.11.2012, which has been challenged by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that they have been singled out for their transfer. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents alleges that it is not a routine transfer but a transfer on promotion of the petitioners from one grade to another. Moreover, HMT Watch Factory at Ranibagh, district Nainital is presently not fully functional and therefore at the places where the petitioners have been transferred, their services will be utilized as per their qualifications, and it has been done in the interest of the organization. The petitioners, however, allege that the transfer was only by way of an offer of promotion and since they have rejected the offer of promotion, they are not liable to be transferred.

(3.) THIS argument of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is wholly misconceived. The petitioners are governed by their Rules of service and the job on which they are working in HMT Watch Factory at Ranibagh, district Nainital is a transferable job. Moreover, the transfer is an exigency of service and it has been done accordingly. Therefore no interference is called for in the present matter.