HARIDASAN THAMBI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION TAMIL NADU DIVISION I LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was functioning as Computer Operator in EDP Section, Trichy, having transferred to technical side as Assistant Tradesman, challenged the order No. 17/14888/a4 dated 23rd Feb. , 1999 passed by General Manager (Admn.), State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. , T. N. Division-I, Madras (hereinafter referred to as 'corporation' ). The writ petition has been dismissed by learned single Judge by common order passed alongwith other writ petitions and, hence, the present appeal.

(2.) IT appears that the appellant joined the service on 1st Sept. , 1981, as Technical Assistant at Madras in the erstwhile Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Chennai, now known as State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai. In 1989, as it appears, computer operators were required for EDP Section. Though no specific post appears to have been created, the Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Chennai, issued circular No. 1557/a1/t. Trans/89 dated 26th March, 1989, inviting applications from willing workmen of the Corporation to appear in the test on 26th March, 1989, a Sunday, in the headquarter office at Chennai for selection as computer operator in EDP Section. The appellant, along with others, participated in the test and on the basis of marks secured in the test, a panel was prepared, published and circulated on 26th March, 1989, wherein name of appellant was reflected at S. No. 26 of the merit list. In the circular it was mentioned that the individuals from the list, based on need, will be transferred to computer section and will be given requisite training at appropriate time. It was also mentioned that the computer section was to function for 24 hours. The selected individuals will have to work in turn in one of the three shifts.

(3.) IT is the case of the appellant that while he was working in the central workshop at Trichy, was relieved from Trichy by order dated 24th May, 1989 to join training where he joined on 29th May, 1989 and completed training on 8th June, 1989. Thereafter, he was posted as computer operator in EDP Section in Marthandam Depot in Kanyakumari District. Since there was no depot at Trivandrum, under the control of Marthandam Depot, the appellant was required to work at EDP Section, Trivandrum by the Branch Manager of Marthandam Depot. After Trivandrum Depot was established, the appellant continued to serve as computer operator in Trivandrum Depot. On 8th April, 1994, the appellant was transferred from Trivandrum Depot to Kanyakumari Depot where in absence of EDP Section, he was asked to work as technical workman. At that stage he represented before the authorities stating that he was working as computer operator and, therefore, he should be transferred to EDP Section and not to the technical side. On the basis of such application, by order dated 18th May, 1994, he was transferred back to EDP Section in Marthandam Depot, where he continued. Again, while he was functioning as computer operator in the EDP Section in Marthandam Depot, he was transferred to the technical side in the same depot vide order dated 12th Aug. , 1997. Consequential order of transfer was issued on 23rd Aug. , 1997 and the appellant was asked to join the technical side. When the matter was again brought to the notice of the authorities, the appellant was again transferred back to EDP Section as computer operator, but in Trichy Depot, by order dated 27th Sept. , 1997. However, after about 1= years, he was again transferred from EDP Section to technical side vide order dated 23rd Feb. , 1999, which was served on him on 2nd March, 1999. He preferred a representation, but no reply having received, a writ petition, W. P. No. 11499/99 was preferred. Learned single Judge, by impugned order dated 6th July, 1999, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the transfer is a condition of service and that the appellant was only deprived of a special pay attached to the post and that as long as the appellant was posted in EDP Section, he was only entitled for special pay, but not against other post. It was also observed that there is no cadre of computer operator nor the appellant was appointed to any such post and, thus, the order of transfer was not vitiated, transfer being an incidence of service.