SAMEER Vs. MOIL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present Writ Petition is to the order of transfer dtd. 30/6/2023 that has been issued by respondent no.3 - General Manager (Personnel), Manganese Ore (India) Limited (MOIL), Nagpur. By the said order, the petitioner who is serving as Chief Manager (Personnel) has been transferred from the head office at Nagpur to Ukwa Mine, District - Balaghat (M.P.). The petitioner made a representation dtd. 3/7/2023 to the General Manager (Personnel). While issuing notice in the Writ Petition, a direction was issued to the General Manager (Personnel) to decide the said representation. On 13/7/2023, the said representation has been decided and the request made by the petitioner for re-consideration of his posting was not accepted. In the said backdrop, the learned Counsel for the parties were heard.

(3.) Shri V.P. Marpakwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's transfer was contrary to the transfer policy of MOIL. Inviting attention to the Standard Operating Procedure for transfer, it was submitted that routine transfers were permissible from January to March. The order of transfer dtd. 30/6/2023 was therefore a mid session transfer not permissible under the Standard Operating Procedure. The petitioner has School going children who had taken admission in Schools at Nagpur. There was no facility of education available at Ukwa Mine and on this count, the petitioner's transfer would cause hardship and inconvenience to the family. The learned Counsel submitted that it was only the petitioner who was chosen to be transferred despite the fact that seniors to him had been retained at the head office. Even if it was assume that for every 500 employees an Executive was necessary, it was submitted that since there were 498 employees at Ukwa Mine, presence of one Executive Officer would suffice. Such Officer was present at the said Mine and there was no necessity of posting the petitioner there. In that regard, a reference was made to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner with a view to indicate that the petitioner's transfer was unwarranted. The representation dtd. 3/7/2023 clearly indicated the need for continuing the petitioner at Nagpur so as to take care of his aged parents who require medical assistance at Nagpur. Without considering the said representation in its proper perspective, the same was rejected. It was thus submitted that the petitioner's transfer being contrary to the transfer policy of MOIL, a case was made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction.