Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohan Ram vs Food Corporation Of India on 10 July, 2019
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 448/2019
1. Sohan Ram S/o Sh. Heera Ram, Aged About 55 Years, At
Present Working As Sardar, At Fsk, 34 Heavy Industrial
Area, Jodhpur.
2. Jahoor Khan S/o Sh. Noor Mohammad,, Aged About 56
Years, At Present Working As Mandal, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
3. Mohan Ram S/o Sh. Ramu Ram,, Aged About 55 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
4. Ramrakh Ram S/o Sh. Dheema Ram,, Aged About 53
Years, At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34
Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
5. Bhakhar Ram S/o Sh. Prahlad Ram,, Aged About 53
Years, At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34
Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
6. Mangi Lal S/o Sh. Barsingha Ram,, Aged About 53 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
7. Balwanta Ram S/o Sh. Sawant Ram,, Aged About 53
Years, At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34
Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
8. Sahi Ram S/o Sh. Barsingha Ram,, Aged About 54 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
9. Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Hariga Ram,, Aged About 54 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
10. Banshi Ram S/o Sh. Bhagirath Ram,, Aged About 57
Years, At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34
Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
11. Sukh Ram S/o Sh. Bagta Ram,, Aged About 55 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
12. Babu Ram S/o Sh. Barsinga Ram,, Aged About 56 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM)
(2 of 8) [SAW-448/2019]
13. Tulsa Ram S/o Sh. Ram Kishan,, Aged About 58 Years, At
Present Working As Mandal, At Fsd, 34 Heavy Industrial
Area, Jodhpur.
14. Kishna Ram S/o Sh. Jagmal Ram,, Aged About 53 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
15. Sudh Ram S/o Sh. Dheema Ram,, Aged About 55 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
16. Babu Ram S/o Sh. Sanwta Ram,, Aged About 54 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
17. Sukh Ram S/o Sh. Kalu Ram,, Aged About 54 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 54 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
18. Bhempa Ram S/o Sh. Kana Ram,, Aged About 54 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
19. Hanuman Ram S/o Sh. Jeera Ram,, Aged About 56 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
20. Kammu Ram S/o Sh. Bhura Ram,, Aged About 57 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
21. Deva Ram S/o Sh. Prahlad Ram,, Aged About 55 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
22. Subhan Khan S/o Sh. Sumar Khan,, Aged About 53 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
23. Sita Ram S/o Sh. Rama Kishan,, Aged About 54 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
24. Sona Ram S/o Sh. Hirkan Ram,, Aged About 51 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
25. Rupa Ram S/o Sh. Surta Ram,, Aged About 53 Years, At
Present Working As Mandal At Fsd, 34 Heavy Industrial
Area, Jodhpur.
26. Kumbha Ram S/o Sh. Bhinja Ram,, Aged About 55 Years,
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM)
(3 of 8) [SAW-448/2019]
At Present Working As Handling Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
27. Magha Ram S/o Sh. Sona Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
28. Prabhu Ram S/o Sh. Dhuda Ram,, Aged About 52 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
29. Navla Ram S/o Sh. Uma Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
30. Rama Ram S/o Sh. Rudha Ram,, Aged About 53 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
31. Hukam Singh S/o Sh. Shankar Singh,, Aged About 34
Years, At Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34
Heavy Industria Area, Jodhpur.
32. Rana Ram S/o Sh. Daula Ram,, Aged About 50 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
33. Sarvan Kumar S/o Sh. Dana Ram,, Aged About 48 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
34. Devi Singh S/o Sh. Dhar Singh,, Aged About 50 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Industria
Area, Jodhpur.
35. Mobta Ram S/o Sh. Amra Ram,, Aged About 50 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
36. Kheta Ram S/o Sh. Tikma Ram,, Aged About 55 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
37. Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh,, Aged About 57
Years, At Present Working As Mandal, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
38. Topan Ram S/o Sh. Shera Ram,, Aged About 56 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
39. Roopa Ram S/o Sh. Reshma Ram,, Aged About 53 Years,
At Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM)
(4 of 8) [SAW-448/2019]
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
40. Raju Ram S/o Sh. Roopa Ram, Aged About 42 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
41. Chemna Ram S/o Sh. Ghamda Ram,, Aged About 56
Years, At Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34
Heavy Industria Area, Jodhpur.
42. Keshu Ram S/o Sh. Shera Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, At
Present Working As Handling Labour At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industria Area, Jodhpur.
43. Bharmal Ram S/o Sh. Bhura Ram,, Aged About 49 Years,
At Present Working As Mandal, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
44. Laxmi Kanwar W/o Sh. Babul Al,, Aged About 55 Years, At
Present Working As Ancillary Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
45. Babri Devi W/o Sh. Deva Ram,, Aged About 59 Years, At
Present Working As Ancillary Labour, At Fsd, 34 Heavy
Industrial Area, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Food Corporation Of India, Through Its Managing Director,
16-20 Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager (Region), Food Corporation Of
India, Regional Office, Jaipur.
3. The Area Manager, Food Corporation Of India, West Patel
Nagar, Circuit House Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu assisted by
Mr. M.S. Champawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM) (5 of 8) [SAW-448/2019] 10/07/2019
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition. They approached this Court challenging the order of Food Corporation of India by which they were transferred from Jodhpur to Udaipur. The Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI') pursuant to suo-moto proceedings under Article 226 initiated by Bombay High Court was required to mandate formula of transfer policy which also include the policy of pooling departmental workers/ labourers. This was to eliminate possibility of arbitrary impact of shifting of workers from one depot to another depot.
2. The challenge was laid primarily on the ground that in carrying out exercise of pooling, which resulted in shifting of entire departmental labourers, FCI acted contrary to the guidelines. This argument was repelled by learned Single Judge, who considered submission of parties and also the material available on record.
3. Counsel for the appellant relied upon FCI's guideline dated 12.7.2016 and submitted that pooling of departmental labourers can be resorted to by making inter-depot, inter-district, inter- region and inter-zone (in exceptional cases) transfer under the same labour system. The further requirement is that the labour in heavily operated depots is calculated on current average work- load of preceding three financial years according to a prescribed formula. It was argued that primarily the exercise carried out in this case was based on two years' data, which is contrary to the guideline, which provides for taking into consideration three years' data and, thus, the entire exercise is contrary to the guidelines. (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM)
(6 of 8) [SAW-448/2019] Serious objection was taken of transfer on the ground that FCI pre-determined the outcome of pooling departmental labourers and there is no such exigency at Jodhpur as is evident from the fact that in its submissions it was stated that previous pooling exercise was done in respect of a large number of such labourers and then only some departmental workers were shifted at their own request.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the decision making process including letters, note-sheets and internal note of FCI with respect to first argument i.e. calculation of current average working load of preceding three financial years. The learned Single Judge held as follows :-
" So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that while clause (ii) requires calculation of current average working load of the preceding three financial years as the formula, however, the respondents have taken into consideration the average working load of preceding two years is concerned, it is not in dispute that prior to 2016, there were several other FSDs like Barmer, Srivijaynagar, Swaimadhopur etc., and after 2016 upon review of depotwise work load, the departmental labourers working there were shifted to four centres i.e. Ajmer, Gandhinagar - Jaipur, Jodhpur and Udaipur. Once, the respondents were required to analyze the data based on the formula indicated therein, they were required to take into consideration the normal conditions which were prevailing for the period post 2016 and, therefore, they were justified in taking into consideration the data of two years. If the submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would result in taking into consideration varying circumstantial data as for one year prior to 2016 the status would have been different as that time there were several other FSDs and post 2016 the same were concentrated into four FSDs and, (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM) (7 of 8) [SAW-448/2019] therefore, the action of the respondents in taking two years data into consideration cannot be faulted with on the ground as raised by the petitioners."
5. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge's observation on this ground cannot be considered as unreasonable. No doubt the circular or guideline does prescribe for three years' data to be taken into account, however, the stipulation cannot be considered as an iron cast rule incapable of deviation and much would depend upon the exigency of FCI's working. The two years data presented in the opinion of Court was sufficient for the organization to determine whether to pool departmental labourers or to continue with the existing system.
6. This Court also is of the opinion that the argument with respect to the Single Judge falling into error regarding transfer of departmental labourers from Udaipur to other places and from Jodhpur to other places without offering any choice is not such a serious matter that requires intervention at the appellate stage. The FCI clearly stated that as far as transfer of labourers/departmental workers to other places in large majority is concerned, the rationale was 'need based pooling' and only few transfers were made at their own request. On this aspect, the learned Single Judge clearly granted leave to the appellants- petitioners to seek shifting to another depot; either at Gandhinagar or at Ajmer, as the case may be, as this is evident from main body of judgment as well as the final direction/liberty granted.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM)
(8 of 8) [SAW-448/2019]
7. This Court recollects that the pooling system adopted by FCI, although inspired by directions of the Bombay High Court, and implemented in the present manner is not sufficient to infer that a manifestly arbitrary procedure so unfair was adopted, to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ 2-Sanjay/-
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:05:38 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)