Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vii) The petitioner has vide his email dated October 17, 2019 highlighted the irregularities and excess payment of Profit Related Payment ('PRP', for short) and acted as a whistle blower. Thus, the petitioner has been issued impugned transfer order against the Transfer Policy, Promotion Policy, Whistle Blower Policy with malafide intentions.

29. At the outset, I must state that during the hearing on August 25, 2021, I had asked Mr. Ghose whether the NTPC is ready to consider the posting of the petitioner to a place nearer to Jaipur where the parents of the petitioner are residing alone. At the request of Mr. Ghose to take instructions, I re-notified the matter on September 01, 2021. On September 01, 2021 Mr. Ghose had taken instructions from the respondents, who are agreeable to post the petitioner any of the following places, namely to Trichy, Mumbai, Bangalore, Ranipet, Bhopal and Haridwar. I had also noted, Bhopal and Haridwar are nearer to Jaipur, as compared to Chennai. Mr. Gupta sought a day's time to take instructions from the petitioner, for choosing any of the places. On September 02, 2021 Mr. Gupta conveyed to the Court that the petitioner is not agreeable to the options given, including for being posted at Bhopal or Haridwar. Accordingly, I proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the challenge.

43. In fact, the respondent NTPC has taken stand that the department is under the supervision of the Manager (Chemistry) who is in a position, in terms of the administrative assessment of the Management, to effectively discharge all functions with the aid of out-sourced manpower. If that be so, surely neither the petitioner nor this Court can sit over the decision of the authorities in that regard. The plea of the petitioner that he has made a complaint dated October 17, 2019 highlighting the alleged excess payment and irregularities with regard to PRP and as such he has acted as a whistle blower is also unmerited. I have seen the complaint dated October 17, 2019 of the petitioner. The plea in that regard of the petitioner is that the grant of PRP to Executive is discriminatory as the profits are not shared among all the employees. Moreover, it is the case of NTPC that the said representation has no connection with the transfer of the petitioner to Chennai. In fact, it is matter of record that the non- executives have also filed a petition in this Court for grant of similar benefit to them. I also agree with the plea of Mr. Ghose, that the petitioner's is not a solitary case of transfer in NTPC. The statistics already given above, show that the transfers are in conformity with the policy decision taken by NTPC for optimum utilisation of manpower.