NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Rajkumar Verma Vs.Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (29 Jun 2020)

A Government servant holding a transferrable post cannot claim a vested right to remain posted at a particular place

MANU/DE/1321/2020

Service

Present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, challenging the Transfer Order whereby the Petitioner has been transferred from Dehradun to Bhopal Circle. A direction is also sought to continue the services of the Petitioner within Delhi Circle, as per the State Bank of India Inter Circle Transfer Policy dated 1st January, 2020. Learned Counsel for Petitioner points out that, the impugned transfer order is in the teeth of the aforesaid Transfer Policy, as there cannot be an inter-circle transfer.

Law on the scope of interference by Courts in matters of transfer/posting is no longer res Integra. Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors., has held that there should be minimal interference by Courts in matters relating to posting of employees. The limited grounds on which the Court can interfere are violation of mandatory Statutory Rules or terms of the Transfer Policy or on the ground of malafide.

Ground of malafide is neither pleaded nor argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Insofar as the ground of violation of the terms of the Transfer Policy is concerned, it is rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for Respondent that, the Policy itself envisages an exception to the right of the employee to be transferred within the Parent Circle. The exception being exigency of service would undoubtedly override all other considerations.

Appointment and post of the Petitioner carries an All India Service liability and he can be transferred by the Respondent in case there is an Administrative requirement. It is really the domain and the prerogative of the Respondent to judge the exigency of service and decide which employee is required to be posted at what place. It is not for the Court to interfere in this decision. The Petitioner has himself given an undertaking to be transferred in case of requirement of the Respondent, at the time of his promotion, as Deputy Manager (Security) in the scale of MMG-II and cannot be permitted to resile from the same.

A Government servant holding a transferrable post cannot claim a vested right to remain posted at a particular place. As held by the Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose, if the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. Transfer is not only an incident but a condition of service and the Courts should be reluctant to interfere in the interest of efficiency in public administration.

Present Court does not find merit in the plea of the Petitioner that in a span of 7 years, he has been posted 5 times. Perusal of the Table given by the Petitioner is an indicator that the 4 postings were all within the Delhi Circle and the Petitioner was only transferred from one office to another. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned Transfer Order.

The Petitioner prayed that a period of 15 days be given to the Petitioner, as joining time. This request of the Petitioner, in the prevailing circumstances, is reasonable. Petitioner is permitted to join his new place of posting at Bhopal, within a period of 15 days. Application disposed of.

Tags : TRANSFER ORDER   RIGHT   INTERFERENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved