All. HC: No Authority to Additional Chief Medical Officer to File Complaint Under PCPNDT Act  ||  Kar. HC: Cannot Prosecute Second Spouse or Their Family for Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC  ||  Calcutta High Court: Person Seeking to Contest Elections is Deemed Public Interest  ||  Mad HC: In Absence of Prohibitory Order u/s 144 CrPC People Assembling and Demonstrating Not Offence  ||  Bom. HC: Legal Action to be Taken Against Doctor for Gross Negligence in Conducting Postmortem  ||  Bom. HC: Husband Directed to Pay Wife Compensation of Rs. 3 Crore for DV & Calling Her ‘Second-Hand’  ||  Delhi High Court Declines Relief to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case  ||  Bom. HC: Banks to Show Evidence to Borrowers Before Invoking Circular on Wilful Default  ||  Calcutta HC: Husband and Wife Collectively Responsible for Creating Congenial Atmosphere  ||  Madras High Court: Hostel Services for Girl Students and Working Women Exempted from GST Regime    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved