ARVIND KUMAR SINGH Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 15/7/2015, thereby transferring the services of the petitioner from Sohagpur Area of respondent No.2 - company to Eastern Coalfields Limited, as well as the orders dated 13/8/2015, 24/9/2015 and 27/9/2015.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as General Manager (Operation) and is presently posted with respondent No.2 company at Sohagpur Area. Respondent No.1 is the Government of India undertaking and an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 is one of the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited. The petitioner earlier was posted as General Manager (Mining ) in Bishrampur Area of respondent No.2 company. Vide order dated 25/8/2014, the petitioner was transferred to Sohagpur Area as General Manager (Operation). In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has submitted his joining on 01/09/2014 at Sohagpur area. The petitioner was thereafter served with an order dated 27/9/2015 thereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from respondent No.2 -company to another subsidiary of the Coal India Limited namely Eastern Coalfields Limited vide order dated 15/7/2015. The order dated 27/9/2015 was accompanied by the order dated 24/9/2015 whereby the petitioner was relieved from respondent No.2 -company to join in Eastern Coalfields Limited w.e.f. 03/10/2015. Vide order dated 27/9/2015, the petitioner was directed to handover the charge to the Staff Officer. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has been transferred in less than one year by respondent No.2 to Eastern Coalfields Limited in West Bengal vide order dated 15/7/2015. The petitioner has further contended that the order dated 15/7/2015 was not ever served upon the petitioner. It has been further contended that the said transfer order has been issued during mid -academic session and the wife of the petitioner is suffering from Hyper tension, Diabetes and heart ailments. It has been also contended that the said transfer order is issued in gross -violation of the transfer policy (Annexure -P/8). As per the said transfer policy, the transfer should have been made normally in the month of April/May, to avoid mid -session transfer and the normal tenure of posting is three years at a place. Being aggrieved by the transfer order, the petitioner has already submitted a representation which is still pending.

(3.) The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply, the respondents have stated that as per transfer policy Annexure -P/8, normally the transfer should not be issued during mid -session, however, in the administrative exigency, an employee can be transferred during mid -academic session also. It has been further stated by the respondents in their reply that as per the transfer policy, the normal tenure of an employee at one place is three years and in the present case, the petitioner is working in the present company i.e. SECL since 2003. Thus, he has already completed more than ten years in the said company and, therefore, the petitioner has been transferred in the same capacity to another company. In the order dated 24/9/2015 it has been clarified that the date of order has wrongly been mentioned as '15/7/2015' instead of "15/9/2015" and, thus, the mistake has been corrected by issuing corrigendum on 24/9/2015. and both these orders are served on the petitioner which is apparent from the distribution list at serial No.9. Thus, the impugned transfer order is based on transfer policy of the Coal India limited.