CAPT. HARI SANKAR AIRY Vs. COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the writ appeal the petitioner has sought for the following relief :

(2.) The case of the petitioner as narrated from the writ petition and submitted during the course of argument, is that the petitioner was an ex-army personnel. He joined as security officer in the Coal India Limited in the grade of officer E/2 on 19.3.1986. For his successful career, after bringing him to several posts, he was lastly promoted from Senior Manager (Security) grade E/6 to Chief Manager (Security) in grade E/7. On his such promotion, he was posted in MCL Jagannath area vide order dated 3.5.2012 as appearing at Annexure-1. Further case of the petiti0ner is that while the petitioner weas so continuing and discharging his duties as Chief Manager (Security) in Jagannath Area of MCL, he was transferred to MCL headquarter at Burla vide office order dated 31.8.2013. Following the above transfer order, he was relieved by office order no. 7229 dated 1.9.2013, petitioner joined on the same day in the headquarter at Burla in the post of Chief Manager (Security) E/7 grade. Petitioner allegeS that while he was continuing as such, he was served with office order No. 208 dated 22.7.2014 by which the petitioner has been once again transferred to another subsidiary company of the Coal India Ltd., i.e., Central Coalfields Ltd., headquarters at Ranchi. He further allegeS that even though copy of such transfer order has not been served on the petitioner, he was relieved by opposite party no.4 by office order No. 2859 dated 23.7.2014 with further advise to the petitioner to report for duty before the Chairmancum- Managing Director, CCL. Through the same order, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charges to one Shri B. K. Singh, MCL headquarter. Petitioner submitted that he has not handed over any charge and further Shri B.K.Singh is an officer of E/5 grade, two stages below the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 22.7.2014 and his relieve order dated 23.7.2014 in filing the present writ. The petitioner submitted that the action of the management is not only in colourable exercise of power but also is in violation of the transfer policy of the Coal India Ltd. To substantiate his allegation, the petitioner referred to a circular/transfer policy which specifically stipulates that no employee either in the executive or in the non-executive, can be transferred if he has less than two years for superannuation. Since the petitioner is to retire in the month of July, 2015, he is well covered by the above circular/transfer policy. The petitioner further alleged that the transfer order at such fag end of his career, also puts him into harassment. Further second transfer even within a short span of time for no valid reason, is also bad in the eye of law. He also attack the transfer order on the plea that since there exist vacancy in E/7 grade, his transfer also suffers for the reason that on his previous transfer, he has been very recently provided with a quarter at Burla and he has shifted his assets and belongings to the said quarter hardly two months back. He further alleged that his such transfer order is motivated and stage managed, only to accommodate the junior staff posted against such high place.

(3.) Per contra, the opposite parties by filing a common counter, while denying the allegations and accusations made against the opposite parties, submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from MCL Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. to Central Coalfields Ltd. in his existing capacity and he has been relieved in the meanwhile. The transfer has been effected as per CCL transfer order dated 22.7.2014. Considering the requirement of an executive in security discipline in CCL, the transfer has been effected after discussing with the Director (P & IR CCL) who has agreed for such transfer of the petitioner from MCL to CCL taking into consideration the transfer policy of the Company. The proposal for transfer of the petitioner was approved keeping in view the administrative exigencies as such claimed that there has been no illegality in the transfer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party during the course of argument, supported the stand of the opposite parties on the basis of the stand taken in the counter, particularly advancing an argument that the transfer of the petitioner was made on administrative exigencies hence, should not be interfered with by a writ court. Further since the petitioner has accepted appointment of the employer with the terms and conditions for being transferred, he should not hesitate on his transfer. The petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit, while reiterating his submission in the writ petition, has submitted that his transfer is not on account of any administrative exigency as there is no such indication in the transfer order vide Annxure-4. While referring some of the judgments of the apex Court, the petitioner has also claimed the order of transfer as illegal.