High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
L.P. Verma And Another v. The General Manager, I.T.I. Limited Naini, Allahabad - WRIT - A No. 44093 of 2006  RD-AH 13879 (21 August 2006)
Court No. 3
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44093 of 2006.
L.P. Verma. ....... ........ Petitioner.
The General Manager, I.T.I. Limited,
Naini, Allahabad and others. ....... ........ Respondents.
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C. Misra)
For the Petitioner : Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari.
For the Respondents. : Sri H.P. Dubey.
Amitava Lala, J.-- First paragraph of the order of transfer dated 07th June, 2006 is clear in respect of the transfer/posting of the petitioner from one place to another. Such paragraph is quoted hereunder:
"His services are required till the completion of work, the above official is posted for two years to GSM and on completion of project work, he will be repatriated to Naini Unit."
There is no rule to say that the petitioner will not be transferred or will be placed in other unit. On the contrary, in the service conditions it is mentioned that he is liable to be transferred to any of Sales and Service Offices in India or Departments or to any other position in the Company. In absence of the rule it appears to be an administrative exigency.
The petitioner wanted to rely upon an interim order of this Court being dated 08th March, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 14201 of 2006 (R.K. Shukla and others Vs. The General Manager, I.T.I. Limited Naini, Allahabad and others) as well as upon other orders passed by either Single Bench or Division Bench. But we also found that several matters are pending, in which no interim order was granted. In any event, in such a situation we have to rely upon an interim order, which has been passed by the Supreme Court, being dated 10th March, 2006 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2852 of 2006 (General Manager, ITI Ltd. and others Vs. Yashwant Singh) arising out of the judgement and order dated 19th January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2830 of 2006, whereby one of the interim order, which was passed by this High Court, has been stayed. One of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent in the matter before the Supreme Court had already taken voluntary retirement, and the writ petition become infructuous. We do not find any logic in such submissions that the order of transfer was being stayed by the Supreme Court. We are very clear in respect of the order of transfer passed as yet in respect of the various matters, therefore, similar order is passed hereunder.
Transfer is an incident of service. It should not be interfered with unless there is apparent illegality, malafide or cause of exceeding jurisdiction. This is not such a case. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with the same.
However, subject to joining of the petitioner in the transferred place he will be entitled to place his representation to the appropriate authority about his personal inconvenience for the purpose of due consideration, who will do the same sympathetically and take a decision preferably within one month from the date of making such representation upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon. For the purpose of effective adjudication a copy of the writ petition and its annexures can be treated as part and parcel of the representation.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
No order is passed as to costs.
(Justice Amitava Lala)
(Justice V.C. Misra)
Dated: 21st August, 2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.