Jharkhand High Court
P.K. Sarkar vs The Secretary-Cum-Chairman, Board Of ... on 31 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2008(1)JCR471(JHR)]
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 9.4.07 as well as the relieving order dated 14.4.07 issued by the Commissioner, C.M.P.F. Dhanbad. The petitioner's case is that he was posted as Programme Analyst at the Head Quarters of C.M.P.F Office, Dhanbad. In the year 2000 he was transferred to Nagpur to the post of Programme Analyst, though there was no post at Nagpur. However, he had joined Nagpur Office. After a few months he was again transferred to Dhanbad. The petitioner was again transferred to the Office of the Joint Commissioner, Division-II, Nagpur on the ground of administrative exigency by the order dated 5.2.07, but that order was subsequently cancelled by the Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 9.4.07, the petitioner has been transferred as Programme Analyst to the Regional Office, Godavarikhani, District- Karimnagar (A.P.).
2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned transfer order on the following grounds:-(i) There is no post of Programme Analyst at the Regional Office, Godavarikhani. (ii) The petitioner is a technical person and he has been transferred as In-charge of the Regional Office at Godavarikhani which is a non-technical post, (HI) The Commissioner has got no power to transfer the post of Programme Analyst to any other place.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed stating, Inter alia, that the petitioner Is the Programme Analyst The C.M.P.F Organization is under the process of total computerization. A policy decision was, thus, taken to set up the Regional Office of C.M.P.F at Godavarikhani, Ramagundem in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Nine personnel/C.M.P.F officials and two officers have already been transferred and posted to that place. The petitioner, who is specialized In the field of computers, has been transferred from Dhanbad to the Regional Office at Godavarikhani. He has been already relieved by the order dated 14.4.07 to join and take charge at that place. The order of his posting has been issued in view of the administrative exigency of the C.M.P.F. Organization and in the public interest for the purpose of proper disbursement of provident fund and pension claims of at least 29,000 pensioners through the Regional Office at Godavarikhani. There is no malafide in issuing the impugned order. Neither the same has been issued by way of punishment. The petitioner has been posted at Dhanbad for about 19 years, out of 20 years of his service period. He was posted at Nagpur only for one year.
4. When this case was taken up on 12.7.07, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no existing post of Programme Analyst at the Regional Office, Godavarikhani and as such he being Programme Analyst: cannot be transferred to that place. Controvert the said contention, the respondent No. 2 had sought some time to make specific statement and to bring on record the document to satisfy this Court that the petitioner has been posted at the same post.
5. An affidavit thereafter has been filed stating, inter alia, that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner being the Chief Executive Officer of the Board has the power to perform such duty/function, as may be required to implement the provisions of Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme or the Pension/Insurance Scheme. The Board of Trustees has delegated certain powers to the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner to enable him to implement Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme or the Pension/Insurance Scheme in terms of Section 10C of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948. The said powers include power to transfer an employee from one post to another, to prescribe an employee's Head Quarters or of any post in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization and so on. By Office Memorandum dated 9.5.07, the Head Quarter of the post of Programme Analyst in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization has been prescribed at Regional Office, Godavarikhani, Ramagundem, District-Karimnagar (A.P) in exercise of the aforesaid power. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the Impugned order.
6. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the power to prescribe the Head Quarter does not mean the power to transfer the Head Quarter. The Commissioner, C.M.P.F. In exercise of that power at best can recommend for shifting the Head Quarter and he has no authority to issue the order fixing the Head Quarters of the post as well as of the petitioner and as such the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner's transfer as In-charge of the Regional Office, Godavarikhani tantamounts to transfer from technical post to non-technical post, altering the cadre of the petitioner which is not permissible in law. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on a decision of the Patna High Court in Ramadhar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported In 1980(2) SLR 722.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the post of Programme Analyst itself has been shifted to the Regional Office, Godavarikhani, District-Karimnagar (A.P). It is not correct to say that the petitioner's cadre has been changed. He will be still holding the post of Programme Analyst. Learned Counsel submitted that according to the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Act as contained in Section 3A(4), the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and he has got legal power to issue the order in question. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner has been delegated with the power by the Board of Trustees in terms of Section 10C(2) of the said Act to prescribe the Head Quarter of any post in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization and in exercise of that power, he has prescribed the petitioner's Head Quarters at Regional Office, Godavarikhani. Learned Counsel submitted that to prescribe' means to lay down authoritatively for direction or rule of action or to impose as peremptory order or to direct and as such the petitioner has no ground to challenge the order of prescribing the Head Quarters and transferring him to the Regional Office which has been now prescribed by the Commissioner.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts, materials and documents brought on record by the respective parties. On perusal of the impugned transfer order (Annexure-4), it is clear that the impugned order has been issued in administrative exigency, for ensuring proper service delivery system in the disbursement of the provident fund and pension claims in the C.M.P.F Organization. The schedule of powers vested in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner has been brought on record as Annexure-A. On perusal of the said annexure, it is clear that the Commissioner has been given full power to prescribe an employee's Head Quarter and to prescribe the Head Quarter of any post in the C.M.P.F Organization. By Office Memorandum dated 9.5.07, the Head Quarter of the post of Programme Analyst in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization has been prescribed at Regional Office, Godavarikhani, Ramagundem, District-Karimnagar (A.P). The said post itself has been transferred to the Regional Office, Godavarikhani from the date when the petitioner joins at the place of posting.
9. According to the Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition), to prescribe' means to dictate, ordain or direct, to establish authoritatively. According to the Chambers Dictionary (New Edition), "to prescribe' means to lay down as a rule or direction, to give as an order etc.
10. There is, thus, no doubt that the power to prescribe the Head Quarter means the power to ordain or direct authoritatively to fix the Head Quarter The interpretation of learned Counsel for the petitioner that to prescribe' means 'to recommend' is, thus, not supported by the aforesaid authority.
11. In view of the above discussions, I find no substance in the petitioner's contention that the impugned order is arbitrary or without jurisdiction. Since the post of Programme Analyst itself has been transferred to the Regional Office, Godavarikhani (A.P.), there is no question of change of the petitioner's cadre. The decision of the Patna High Court cited by the petitioner has no application to the facts of the instant case.
12. It has been stated by the respondents that shifting of the petitioner's place/Head Quarter is required in view of the administrative exigency and in public interest. The Commissioner has got prerogative to shift the Head Quarter and in view thereof, there is no valid ground for challenging his power of shifting the Head Quarter of the Programme Analyst to the Regional Office, Godavarikhani. No legal provision has been brought before this Court to show that the petitioner has any right to choose the place of his posting or to fix his Head Quarters. In view of the above, I find no valid ground to interfere with the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction of this Court.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.