HC expounds Guidelines to regulate annual transfers cannot be applied to transfers on promotion

  

Read Judgment;

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sumit Dagar vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Justice Rekha Palli held that merely because the Respondent no.2 as an employer framed certain guidelines to regulate annual transfers of its employees, it cannot imply that the same parameters must be applied even to transfers on promotion.

Facts

The petitioner, who has been working in the respondent no.2/Airport Authority of India since 18.07.2011, having joined as a Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control) (‘ATC’) approached this Court to issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or directions qua the Respondents to quash the impugned arbitrary and illegal transfer & promotion order to the extent of setting aside the transfer of the petitioner from the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to the Mangalore Station.

Contentions Made

Petitioner: It was contended that the respondents have acted in violation of para 3(i), 3(ii), 3(v), 4.1 and 4.8 of the transfer policy which clearly mandates that transfers shall normally be avoided and, in any event, inter-regional transfers would be ordered only as per seniority. It was also contended that even otherwise the respondents failed to seek any option from the petitioner as mandated in terms of para 3(i) of the transfer policy. It was also contended that since the transfer order was issued on 29.07.2022, the respondents failed to follow the timelines specified in para 3 (i) of the transfer policy which envisages that all transfer orders should be issued by end of March in every year.

Respondent: It was contended that the petitioner’s transfer as a Manager was not an annual transfer and hence, was not covered by the policy. It was further contended that the Court cannot intervene in such matter unless any malafide is made out.

Observations by the Court

The Bench perused the transfer policy and noted that the clauses therein did not deal with a transfer which may be necessitated on account of promotion of an employee wherein he was expected to discharge a higher responsibility. It opined that merely because the respondent no.2 as an employer has framed certain guidelines to regulate the transfers of its employees which are evidently meant to be annual transfers, it cannot imply that the same parameters must be applied even to transfers on promotion:

 

“The right of an employer to utilize the services of an employee upon promotion in the manner which is deemed fit, cannot be curtailed by the general guidelines issued for regulating annual/routine transfers. I, thus, have no hesitation in holding that the policy guidelines dated 27.02.2018 are not applicable to the transfers on promotion which fall in a different class altogether.”

It concurred with the respondent’s plea that the Court ought not to normally interfere with the transfer unless a ground of malafide is made out. In this case, the petitioner neither raised any ground of malafide nor urged that the impugned order was not issued by a competent authority nor contended that the transfer order was in violation of any statutory rule. It noted that the petitioner, who is a trained Air Traffic Controller and is in a transferable job, has already remained posted in Delhi for more than 11 years.

 

Judgment

The Bench found no reason to interfere with the respondent’s decision to utilise his services as a Manager (ATC) at Mangalore and dismissed this petition accordingly.

Case: Sumit Dagar vs Union of India & Ors.

 

Citation: W.P.(C) 12441/2022 & CM APPL. 37421/2022 (stay)

Bench: Justice Rekha Palli

Decided on: 1^st November 2022