AMARNATH PANDEY Vs. HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has, by this petition, prayed that Rule 9 (xii) (a) and (b) of the H. S. C. L. Service Rules be declared as void, illegal and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has also challenged order dated 5-5-1989 (Annexure A-16) and prayed for quashing of the same. The petitioner has further prayed that Order dated 26/27-12-1988 transferring the petitioner from Bhilai to Tanakpur may be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Zonal Engineer (Civil) in the service of the Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter, referred to HSCL) and was posted at Bhilai, District Durg. He joined the service of the HSCL on 1st March, 1973 as a Technical Assistant. He was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer in 1985 and then he was promoted as Divisional Engineer in 1980. (sic) The petitioner received his last promotion on 4-4-1988 as Zonal Engineer. By order dated 26/27-12-1988, the petitioner was transferred from HSCL Bhilai to HSCL Tanakpur, which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) ON 3-12-1988, a proposal was received by the respondent No. 2 Deputy General Manager from the Assistant General Manager (Personnel and Administration) Headquarter to examine and send a report for purposes of sparing two officers for Tanakpur and one officer for Ranchi. According to the proposal, the requirement for Tanakpur was for a Superintending Engineer/deputy Chief Engineer. The petitioner was neither Superintending Engineer nor the Deputy Chief Engineer. Therefore, he was nowhere in the panel sent by the respondent No. 2. Another letter was received from Assistant General Manager (Panda), Calcutta to release at least two Executive Engineers preferably Shri D. Banerji and petitioner Amarnath Pandey to meet the urgent requirement of Tanakpur. On this, the Deputy General Manager, respondent No. 2, expressed his inability to spare the petitioner and Shri D. Banerji as they were looking after the specified important jobs in Bhilai. Another note was sent by the Deputy General Manager, respondent No. 2 stating that it was not possible to spare the petitioner and Shri Banerji who were engaged in certain important jobs and could not be released for transfer. Respondent No. 2 also protested the method of asking the officers by name when the Chairman-cum-Managing Director had specifically told that no unit will ask for officer by name from any particular unit.