High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Pitambar v. Managing Director U.P. State Bridge Corp. Lkw. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 72330 of 2005  RD-AH 6349 (24 November 2005)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ No. 72330 of 2005
Pitambar ... Petitioner
Managing Director U.P. State
Bridge Corporation, Lucknow and others... Respondents
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner is challenging his order of transfer dated 15.10.2005 transferring him from Hazipur to Tanda. The pettioner claims that he was appointed as Driver in a project of U.P. State Bridge Corporation under U.P. Praiyojna Prabandhak. He also claims that he has been transferred without his vehicle which is contrary to the Standing Orders as well as orders passed by the Corporation itself.
The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as Truck Cleaner on Truck no. AHK 3027, thereafter as driver on the aforesaid truck w.e.f. 1995 as work charge employee and is working as such till today.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an interim order dated 7.9.2000 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 5085 of 2000-Jangi Lal V. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd in support of his case.
It is vehemently urged by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a class IV employee belonging to Scheduled caste category cannot be transferred to a far off place and the order of transfer is arbitrary. He placed implicit reliance in paragraph 15 of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Prasad V. Union of India and others-(2005)2UPLBEC-1767, which is as under :-
"15. Therefore, in view of the above, the law stands summarized that in a case of class IV or law paid employees, the power of transfer should be used sparingly when required in administrative exigency, and not in a routine manner. More so, the power is to be exercised in good faith, not arbitrarily, and the employer should try to accommodate at a nearby place as his transfer at a far distance may cause him great financial hardship and may make his survival difficult."
On a specific query as to when the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver, counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that the petitioner was a daily wager and that a daily wager is not issued appointment letter.
The Standing Counsel submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner has been transferred along with other employees working at different places. It is further submitted that the petitioner is being posted at Tanda as Beldar in exigencies of work instead of termination of the services of the petitioner who is a daily wager in the project and if the petitioner is not interested in the job, he may not join.
I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner is a daily wager/work charge employee. At the most, his engagement was ad-hoc. Admittedly, he was not working against a sanctioned post and has no legal right to contend that he is a driver of the Corporation. Paragraph 15 of the judgement in Rajendra Prasad (supra) demonstrates that there is no bar on transfer and that the power of transfer should be exercised sparingly when required in administrative exigency and not in a routine manner. The petitioner has been directed to work as Beldar at Tanda by the impugned order dated 15.10.2005. He is a daily wager and if appointment is not acceptable to him, he has no legal right to claim that he should be transferred to Tanda as driver along with truck. In these circumstances, direction to the petitioner to work at Tanda along with other employees instead of discontinuing his engagement at Hazipur cannot be said to be not in good faith or arbitrary. Moreover, the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra) is based on mala fides which are neither alleged by the petitioner nor established from the impugned order in the present case. As such, the facts of Rajendra Prasad (supra) are clearly distinguishable. Interim order is not a judgment and has no persuasive value, as such, I am not persuaded by the interim order dated 7.9.2000 passed in Jangi Lal ''s case (supra).
For the reasons stated above, it is not a fit case for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.