DIPTI NIGAM Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 11.9.2013 (Annexure P-1). By this order, the petitioner is posted on promotion to Manendragarh (Chhattisgarh).

(2.) The facts narrated by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Assistant at Morena. The petitioner's husband is an Administrative Officer in the respondent-Company and presently posted at Gwalior. Her son is a student of Class-XI. The respondents issued a notice dated 9.7.2013 for implementing the promotion policy for the post of Senior Assistant. Options were invited for filling up the post of Senior Assistants available at Gwalior, Ratlam, Manendragarh and Champa (Chhattisgarh). The said notice is filed as Annexure P-4. Another notice dated 6.8.2013 (Annexure P-5) is also issued by the department. The petitioner submitted her candidature for the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner gave her choice and opted for Gwalior. No second preference was given by the petitioner. The respondents considered the eligible candidates and then issued the final merit list. In this list, the name of the petitioner is at No.1. It is contended by the petitioner that in the merit list petitioner is at No.1. The respondents have framed policy viz; Job Rotation & Transfer Policy for Supervisory, Clerical & Sub-Ordinate Staff (Policy). It is contended by Shri Anil Sharma that as per the said policy, the person so selected for promotion is entitled to get a nearer posting depending upon his/her merit. Since the petitioner was at No.1 in the merit list, it is contended that she was entitled to get posting at nearer place i.e., Gwalior. It is further submitted that Manendragarh is about 1200 kms. from Morena and it will be contrary to policy to send a female employee to such a far-off place. More-so, when her son and 53 year old unsound brotherin- law is dependent on her. Thus, the main attack on impugned order is on the basis of Clause 11(b) of the policy.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Gajendragadkar for the employer submits that the transfer order is an administrative order on which no interference is warranted by this Court. He submits that there is no malice in the order impugned and, therefore, no interference be made.