Gujarat High Court
Surendrasing Navalsing Mahto & 42 vs Union Of India & 4 on 11 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 GUJ 64
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/LPA/1246/2016 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1246 of 2016
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14738 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11653 of 2016
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1246 of 2016
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Sd/
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
SURENDRASING NAVALSING MAHTO & 42....Appellant(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================
===Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 43
MR HAMESH C NAIDU, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2 5
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 11/07/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14738/2016 by which the Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sun Jul 23 22:48:37 IST 2017 C/LPA/1246/2016 JUDGMENT learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the concerned workmen who came to be transferred from Vadodara to Ahmedabad, the original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
[2.0] We have heard Shri N.K. Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants herein - original petitioners and Shri Hamesh Naidu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
[3.0] That the appellants herein - original petitioners were serving as labourers at Food Storage Depot, at Vadodara. Due to the administrative exigencies and as it was found that sufficient work was not available at Vadodara and the concerned labourers were being paid idle wages, on reorganization of entire establishment, a decision was taken to transfer all the existing departmental labourers of Food Storage Depot at Vadodara to Food Storage Depot, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. The same came to be challenged by the appellants herein - original petitioners before the learned Single Judge by way of the aforesaid Special Civil Application.
[3.1] That by the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition. Hence, the original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
[4.0] Shri Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants herein - original petitioners has vehemently submitted that as such while transfering all the labourers serving at Vadodara to Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, the Authority has considered and relied upon the Notification dated 06.07.2016. It is submitted that in the Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sun Jul 23 22:48:37 IST 2017 C/LPA/1246/2016 JUDGMENT facts and circumstances of the case, as such the Notification dated 06.07.2016 shall not be applicable.
[4.1] It is further submitted that even otherwise as per the Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016, the Hon'ble Minister CA, F&PD had observed that at certain places the workers are being strong far from their areas and therefore, it is desired not to shift the workers beyond 100 km. It is further submitted by Shri Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants herein that even as per the transfer policy the widows are not required to be shifted / transferred and they are required to be kept at a particular station where they are working. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon Clause 4.4 of the Transfer Policy Guidelines.
Making above submissions it is requested to admit / allow the present Letters Patent Appeal.
[5.0] Present Letters Patent Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Naidu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that as there was no sufficient work available at Food Storage Depot, Vadodara and it was found that usual working at Food Storage Depot, Vadodara is hardly 8 to 10 days in a month whereas Food Storage Depot, Sabarmati was having the capacity of 80,000 MT and its own railway siding and that there is a work of average handling quantity per month 14422 MT requiring 2526 days work and therefore, to save the cost and expenditure, a conscious decision was taken on reorganization of the establishment and rationalization of the departmental labourers at various depots including Vadodara. It is submitted that neither any malafide is alleged nor there are any allegations of victimization. It is submitted that therefore when a conscious decision was taken by the Department to transfer the entire depot at Vadodara to Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Sun Jul 23 22:48:37 IST 2017 C/LPA/1246/2016 JUDGMENT Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition.
[5.1] It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case neither the Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016 nor the Transfer Policy Guidelines more particularly Clause 4.4, which has been relied by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, shall be applicable.
Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal.
[6.0] We have heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties at length. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
At the outset it is required to be noted that as sufficient work at Vadodara Depot was not available and it was found that the ususal working at Food Storage Depot, Vadodara was hardly 8 to 10 days in a month and the labourers were being paid idle wages for rest of the days and it was found that the Food Storage Depot, at Sabarmati was having the capacity of 80,000 MT and its own railway siding and that there is a work of average handling quantity per month 14422 requiring 2526 days work and only thereafter on reorganization and rationalization of departmental labourers at various depots including Vadodara, a decision has been taken to transfer the labourers from Food Storage Depot, Vadodara to Food Storage Depot, at Sabarmati and therefore, when the same has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. It is required to be noted that neither any malafide is alleged nor there are any allegations of victimization. The decision has been taken looking to the administrative exigency and in the public interest.
Page 4 of 6
HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Sun Jul 23 22:48:37 IST 2017
C/LPA/1246/2016 JUDGMENT
Under the circumstances, no interference of this Court is called for.
[6.1] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016 is concerned, it is required to be noted that even in Clause 4 of the said circular it provides that it has been desired not to shift the workers beyond 100 km unless in case of extreme exigency or in a situation where the workers inevitably have to be transferred out of region. In the present case, case of extreme exigency has been made out. Under the circumstances, the observations made in Clause 4 of Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016 shall not be of any assistance to the appellants.
[6.2] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Clause 4.4 of the Transfer Policy Guidelines is concerned, the same also shall not be of any assistance to the appellants and/or the concerned widows. It is true that as per Clause 4.4 of the Transfer Policy Guidelines the widow and unmarried woman employees may be considered for posting at the place of their choice, however the same shall be as far as possible and subject to administrative convenience. As observed hereinabove the transfer of labourers from Food Storage Depot, Vadodara to Food Storage Depot, Sabarmati is because of the administrative convenience and in the public interest and on reorganization and rationalization of the departmental labourers.
[6.3] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
[7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sun Jul 23 22:48:37 IST 2017 C/LPA/1246/2016 JUDGMENT Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11653 OF 2016 In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.11653/2016 also stands dismissed.
Sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) Sd/ (B.N. KARIA, J.) Ajay Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sun Jul 23 22:48:37 IST 2017