Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Surender Kumar vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 13 June, 2025
1
Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 4924/2024 with MA Nos. 574/2025 &
4778/2024
Order Reserved on: 13.05.2025
Order Pronounced on: 13.06.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
1. Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Inder Raj Singh R/o House No.
280 Bhor Garh, Distt. North West Delhi Pin-110040.
2. Suresh Chand S/o Sh. Tula Ram Ro House No. 111,
Manjhawal, Faridabad, Haryana - 121101
... Applicants
(By Advocates:- Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Mr. Anurag
Rawat & Mr.Kshitij Singh)
Versus
1. Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development
Corp. Ltd through Chief Manager (Pers) N-36 Bombay
Life Building,Connaught Circus, New Delhi-01
Also at -
Plot No. 74, Ist Floor MCD Property Tax Building
Lajpat Nagar, Delhi-24
... Respondents
(By Advocate:- Ms. Varsha Tomar)
ORDER
As per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial) Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties.
MA No. 4778/2024
The instant MA has been filed seeking permission to contest the matter jointly.
2
Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 The present OA has been filed by two applicants against a common cause of action seeking common relief with common intention.
In view of the averments made in the MA, the same is allowed and the applicants are permitted to contest the matter jointly.
Accordingly, the instant MA stands disposed off. MA No. 574/2025 The instant MA has been filed on behalf of the respondent seeking vacation of the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in the OA.
The present OA being heard finally and accordingly, the MA No. 574/2025 has rendered infructuous.
MA No. 574/2025 accordingly disposed off. OA No 4924/2024
The applicants are working as Manager in Delhi State and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Delhi and by means of the present OA have invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashment of transfer/posting order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) whereby the applicant No. 01 has been posted from IMFL, Division, New Delhi to REM Division, New Delhi and applicant No. 02 has been transferred from IMFL/Okhla EM, Delhi to Legal Division in Delhi.
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by both the applicants that applicant No. 01 is posted as shop-In-charge 3 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 at Liquor Shop-B, Block Connaught Place, Delhi and applicant No. 02 posted at shop-In-charge at Wine Shop, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. Now vide impugned posting order dated 13.12.2024, they have been transferred from IMFL Division to REM Division and IMFL/Okhla (EM) Division to Legal Division.
3. It is also the case of the applicants that in accordance with transfer policy (Annexure A-2) of DSIIDC-respondent No. 01 and officers level of Asst. Manager or above the level are posted in the shop as shop-in-charge and immediate supporting staff shall not be in same rank will be posted one step below level of shop-in-charge.
4. Deputy Managers also considered for posting as shop- in-charge only for special identical shops by the competent authority, as Area Officers with tenure of two years. So also, broad guidelines issued regarding posting of Officers/Officials in IMFL Division dated 26.02.2021 and tenure is of two years.
5. Per-contra, the respondent had filed counter affidavit stating that impugned transfer order is issued by DSIIDC and the applicants have been posted within Delhi from one division to another. Clause 11, empowers the competent authority-DSIIDC to post its employees as per 4 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 transfer/posting policy for smooth and effective administration and in public interest. In order to fulfill requirement of man-power in liquor vends of the corporation and Broad guidelines issued vide office order dated 26.02.2021 regarding posting with IMFL Division including their duties and responsibilities in supersession of all previous orders.
6. Respondent-DSIIDC has also averred that the impugned transfer/posting order dated 13.12.2024 is in consonance with clause 11 of the transfer/posting guidelines (Annexure A-2) and the applicants do not have any vested legal rights to claim posting at Connaught Place, New Delhi and Malviya Nagar New Delhi. The applicants have been transferred in the administrative necessity and non-joining at their current place of posting, affecting smooth functioning and operation of respondent.
7. Rejoinder to the counter reply has been filed by the applicants reiterating the contentions of the OA and alleging non-compliance of transfer guidelines.
SUBMISSIONS
8. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the impugned order of posting of both the applicants is contrary to transfer/posting policy (Annexure A-2), whereby normal 5 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 tenure of two years for a vend-in-charge from date of posting is prescribed. The respondents have posted junior cadre officials to the post of applicants contrary to the transfer policy. The applicants at fag end of service career transferred from one division to another division at Delhi of the DSIIDC against principles of natural justice.
9. The sum and substance of submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants that impugned transfer order dated 13.12.2024 is contrary to transfer policy, wherein in normal tenure is two years but the applicants transferred within one and a half year and not followed guidelines for posting of officials/In-charge in IMFL Division dated 26.02.2021.
10. Ms. Varsha Tomar, the learned counsel for the respondents vociferously canvassed that the applicants have been transferred in accordance with clause 11 of the transfer policy(Annexure A-2) and there is no violation of transfer policy and the applicants have no vested rights to claim posting of own choice. The applicants have been posted from one division to another and within Delhi and there is no change of headquarter.
11. The sum and substance of the contentions of the respondents that on harmonious construction of clauses of 6 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 transfer policy, DSIIDC is final competent authority to post the applicants in administrative exigencies and public interest. The impugned posting order dated 13.12.2024 is in consonance with transfer guidelines in IMFL vends. The applicants have not joined at place of transfer/posting and same is affecting smooth functioning and operation of place of posting. The impugned transfer/posting order neither vitiated by malafides nor violative of any statutory rules.
DISCUSSION
12. Heard with consent the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record.
13. The short issue for consideration is "whether the impugned transfer order dated 13.12.2024, so far relates to the applicants suffers from malafide exercise of power, violative of statutory rules or same is without jurisdiction?"
14. This is a trite law that scope of judicial interference in transfer matters in exercise of power of judicial review is limited: -
(i) Transfer is issue of violation of statutory rules.
(ii) Malafide exercise of power.
(iii) Transfer order is without jurisdiction."7
Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024
CASE LAW
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Versus S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, Their Lordships in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 held as:-
"6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority".
Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order, -- though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.
7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.
8. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in service matters. This is evident from a perusal of Article 323-A of the Constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (competent authority).
[Emphasis supplied]
8
Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024
16. In case of Rajendra Singh and others Versus State of UP & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 178, Their Lordships in paragraph 8 held as:-
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 55] , SCC p. 406, para 7).
[Emphasis supplied]
17. In case of Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 659,. Their Lordships held as under:-
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.
[Emphasis supplied]
18. In case of Union of India Versus Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC, Their Lordships in paragraph 14 held:-
"The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for the Supreme Court to direct one way or the other. It is 9 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
19. Now coming to the case in hand that the applicant No. 01 was posted as a shop-in-charge at Liquor shop, B-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi and applicant No. 02 posted at wine Shop, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 13.12.2024, they have been transferred from IMFL Division to REM Division and IMFL/Okhla (EM) Division to Legal Division within Delhi. The transfer and posting policy of IMFL vends, clause 3 stipulates where A.M or officer above level are posted in shop as shop-in-charge and as per clause 3 of the policy envisaged not mandatory, word 'normally' used to be a tenure of two years for a vend in-charge from the date of posting. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that within a period of two years tenure, both applicants have been illegally transferred. So also clause 11 of the Transfer Policy in IMFL -Vends (Annexure A-2), reads as -
"11. The management will have, notwithstanding the above, a clear discretion to post Shop Incharges and other subordinate staff in the shops (whether L-2 or L-10 vend) depending upon their status, eligibility, performance and ability to function as Shop Incharge and otherwise. The discretion of the Competent Authority shall be final and binding."
(emphasis supplied)
20. As evident from the aforesaid non-obstante clause 11 and same is clear as noon day that the competent authority 10 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 i.e DSIIDC has jurisdiction and competence to transfer the applicants in exigencies of administrative requirement and for interest of smooth and effective administration. So also DSIIDC issued transfer/posting Policy for IMFL Division dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure A-3) Broad guidelines regarding posting of officers/officials with IMFL Division in supersession of all previous orders and the applicants are holding transferrable posts.
21. The respondent-DSIIDC (IMFL Division) issued transfer/posting in IMFL vends (Annexure A-2) and Broad Guidelines regarding posting of officers/officials with the IMFL Division and stipulates transfer/posting normally at the end of every quarter, to fulfill requirement of manpower in liquor vends of the DSIIDC and the competent authority on face of impugned order dated 13.12.2024 has issued posting order in the interest of work from one division to another division within Delhi. I do not find illegality in the impugned posting order dated 13.12.2024, qua applicants and same has been issue in the interest of DSIIDC and the applicants have failed to establish infringement of any vested legal right to claim posting of their own choice. So also not shown infringement of any statutory rules and undisputedly the impugned posting order dated 13.12.2024 has been issued by the competent authority.
11
Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024
22. The applicants have filed transfer/posting policy in IMFL vends(Annexure A-2) and Broad Guidelines regarding posting of officers/officials (Annexure A-3) issued in order to fulfil the requirement of manpower in DSIIDC and on face of record same are transfer/posting guidelines. Applicants have failed to establish that same have any statutory force, guidelines are guidelines and same have been followed as discussed above.
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357. So also reiterated in para 25, S.K. Naushad Rahman vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.1243 of 2023 dated 10.03.2022, Their Lordships held that "executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons, who are employed in the service, is subject to the overreaching needs of the administration".
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Singh Vs. UOI, (1994) 6 SCC 98, in State of MP Vs. Ashok Kumar Deshmukh & Anr (1983) 3 SCC 503 and in Bhagwat Singh Verma Vs. State of MP, (2011) 3 MPHT 479 (DB) held that transfer/posting is an incident of service and the 12 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 applicants hold a transferrable post and which employee should be posted where is a matter for appropriate authority to decide unless the transfer is vitiated by malafides. Hon'ble High of M.P, Their Lordships held that " a person against whom allegations of malafides are made, has to be personally impleaded and plea of malafides has to be properly pleaded and proved. The burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Applicant has chosen not to implead any person, against whom malafides made, without giving opportunity of hearing against whom such allegations are made, same cannot be taken to be proved."
25. I am of the view that the posting of applicants is an incident of public service and the applicants have no vested right to claim posting at place of their own choice. Therefore, the impugned Order transfer/posting order dated 13.12.2024 so far relates to the applicants, have not affected any service conditions of pay or any other benefits attached to the posts. As such, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for.
CONCLUSION
26. For the reasons stated hereinabove and legal preposition settled by catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicants have failed to establish 13 Item No.17 (C-6) O.A. No. 4924/2024 infringement of any legal right, violation of any statutory rules of transfer, or impugned transfer/posting order dated 13.12.2024 so far relates to the applicants are without jurisdiction.
27. The impugned Transfer/posting Order dated 13.12.2024 so far relates to the applicants in the present OA is upheld, does not suffer from any infirmity and remains unassailable, so also not affected any of the service conditions of the applicants.
28. Resultantly, the Original Application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.
30. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (J) /abhay/