1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Delhi
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January


High Court Of Delhi|05 July, 2012


1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned transfer order No.RCE/PER/14/90 dated 27.10.2011 and Office Order No.RCE/PER/14/90 dated 16.01.2012.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver (LM) with effect from 01.03.1989 on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of `950-20-1150-ED-25-1400/- per month plus other admissible allowances, under the rules.
3. By an office order dated 26.03.1992, he was appointed as driver in the pay scale of `950-20-1150-ED-25-1400/- per month on regular basis. Thereafter, his pay-scale were revised from time to time.
4. Vide order dated 10.10.2011 he was directed to drive Mercedes Benz car, which he refused to drive because of the fact that the same car was fully automated. The petitioner had no training with up to date technology.
5. The respondent transferred the petitioner vide impugned office order dated 27.10.2011 and was directed to report to Secretary (GA), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, In the meanwhile, petitioner proceeded on 45 days sanctioned leave for treatment of his aged mother of 70 years, suffering from lever damage, blood sugar, spinal problem, poor eye sight and is on death bed.
6. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 12.12.2011 to recall the transfer order, inter-alia submitting as under:-
‘a) He had been working and posted in New Delhi since 1988.
b) The petitioner since then had been driving only Ambassador Car for more than two decades in said department at New Delhi. The Mercedes Benz car is a fully automatic car and use by the Hon’ble Governor. The petitioner without proper training with updated technology could not drive the said car.
c) That the petitioner’s son aged 13 years is suffering from an eye problem and had been operated twice in hospitals at Delhi. He has already lost one eye and needs regular treatment / check up at Delhi hospitals also.’
7. Thereafter, vide communication dated 16.01.2012 informed the petitioner that his request for withholding his transfer to Itanagar cannot be considered at this stage. The grievance of the petitioner may be forwarded to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
8. The case of the petitioner is that he has been driving ambassador car for more than two decades. Therefore, it was difficult for him to drive the Mercedes Benz car which is fully automatic and used by the Governor. He throughout posted at Delhi. Therefore, his transfer to Itanagar is illegal and malafide.
9. Response has been filed on behalf of respondent to instant petition vide additional affidavit dated 28.03.2012 wherein it is stated that the transfer of the petitioner is routine transfer and same is not either a punishment or is in violation of the rules or malafide.
10. On perusal of Annexure R-1 filed by respondent, it is revealed that even the Attendant, Driver, Safai Karamchari were transferred earlier on different dates. Therefore, it is not only the case of petitioner, who has been transferred.
11. The Division Bench of this Court has already held in P.Rajapratap v. UOI & Ors : 2010 (1) SLR 123 while referring the decision in UOI v. S. L. Abbas : AIR 1993 SC 2444 that a policy guideline regulating transfer of employees does not create any enforceable legal right in favour of an employee. It being settled law that transfer and posting is an incident of service and it is upto the respondent to decide where the employee should be deputed. Of course, where malice is proved, a Court can interdict a transfer posting order.
12. If the Court interferes with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be a complete chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public interest.
13. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.
14. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for parties and settled law, I find no merit in the instant case. However, it is open to Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2011, as mentioned above, sympathetically for the reasons mentioned therein, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 03three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Moreover, he has taken training privately to drive Mercedes Benz car, as stated by Mr.Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner.
15. Accordingly, instant petition stands disposed of in above terms.
16. In view of above, CM No.2175/2012 does not further adjudication and stands disposed of.
17. Registry to send the copy of this order to respondent for compliance.
18. No order as to costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.



High Court Of Delhi

05 July, 2012
  • Suresh Kait
  • Kait