MAGANBHAI CHHANABHAL PATEL Vs. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant joined service of Government of India in the Overseas Communication Services Department on March 2, 1957 as Lower Division Clerks. On April 1, 1986 the services of all the employeesof Overseas Communication Services were transferred to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited. On April 1, 1986 the appellant was working as Head clerk and was subsequently promoted to the post of Superintendent of Bombay Branch in the year 1990. The appellant is holding Class III post. By order dated Nov. 26, 1991 the appellant was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer and was transferred to Poona. The appellant informed the respondent that he is forgoing the promotion and his order of transfer to Poona should be cancelled. The prayer was not acceded to and that gave rise to filing of Writ Petition No.3580 of 1991 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the Original Side of this Court.

(2.) The appellant claimed that the conditions of his service prescribed that Central Government Service Rules would be applicable until the respondent frames their own rules. The appellant claimed that the respondent had not framed the rules and according to the Central Government Civil Service Rules an employee cannot be transferred in case he declines promotion. The appellant also relied upon some circulars to urge that the transfer of employees in Class III and Class IV should not be ordered. The learned single Judge by the impugned Judgment summarily dismissed the petition holding that the circulars relied upon by the appellant have no application in respect of services of the respondent and the circulars are applicable only to the employees belonging to the Department of Posts. The learned single Judge also turned down the claim of the appellant that the transfer was arbitrary. The order of the single Judge is under challenge.

(3.) Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the appellant had already completed 56 years of age and has hardly two years left prior to his retirement on reaching the age of superannuation. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is residing in Bombay for last over 35 years and it would be extremely difficult for the appellant to proceed to Poona at the fag end of his service. Shri Presswala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, very fairly stated that the service record of the appellant is clean and there are no complaints whatsoever against the appellant. Shri Presswala submitted that the transfer was effected because the appellant is familiar with certain administrative work and there is no person available to carry out that work at Poona, the incumbent in Poona having retired. Shri Presswala submitted that the respondent had got ample powers to transfer the employees and the action of transfer of the appellant does not suffer from any mala fides.