Sunday, November 4, 2012

Bom O.A. No. 715/2011 on ?????-02-2012


 O.A. No. 715/2011

Dated this          , the    th day of February, 2012.


Shri J.A. R.Khan,
Joint General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Dehu Road, Pune,
(R/at: B-2/95, Vail Vihar Society,
Bijlinagr, Chinchwad,
Pune 33.                            ...      Applicant
(Applicant by Shri S.P. Saxena, Advocate)


1.  The Union of India, through
    The Secretary, Dept. of Defence
    Production, Ministry of Defence,
    South Block, New Delhi 110 011.

2.  The Chairman
    Ornannce Factory Board,
    10-A.S.K. Bose Road,
    Kolkata 700 001.

3.  The General Manager,
    Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road,
    (Dist. Pune).

4.  The General Manager, Ordnance
    Factory Badmal,
    Dist. Bolangi (Orissa State)    ... Respondents
(Respondents by Shri R.R.Shetty, Advocate)

                     O R D E R

     This O.A. No. 715/2011 is filed on 8.11.2011 under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals' Act 1985 agitating the order of transfer of the applicant from
Dehu Road, (Dist. Pune) to Badmal in Orissa on the claim that it is in violation of the transfer policy.

2.    The facts as brought out are that the applicant who is presently a Senior Level Officer with the Designation of Joint General Manager at the Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road, Pune had joined the Ordnance Factory Establishment as Supervisor Grade B on 28.12.1983 and continued to work in Pune District either at Kirkee or Dehu Road (both near to Pune).  He was selected for a higher post of Assistant Works Manager in 1996 and underwent the required training at Nagpur for about an year after which he was posted at Ordnance Factory at Chanda from 2.12.1997 and continued to work there for nearly 10 years i.e. upto 31st March, 2007.  Chanda is considered as a hard station posting. He was posted back to Ordnance Facory at Dehu Road in 2007, but he is now under orders of transfer to Badmal in Orissa  by order dated 26.08.2011 which order has been stayed by this Tribunal till the pendency of this O.A.  The applicant challenges the transfer order mainly on four grounds. 
(a)  As per the transfer policy any person who has  done a hard-station posting should be given soft station  posting atleast for next five years.  But he is now under orders of transfer to another hard station, only after four years.

(b)    There are some other Officers in the Pune, Kirkee-Dehu Road, belt, who have spent more number of years at these stations but they have not been disturbed under the present transfer order.

©     His 83 year old father  suffering from Bone Marrow disorder has to undergo regular blood transfusion at Pune. This along with other domestic responsibilities will make it difficult for him to wok at Badmal.

(d)      The post of Safety Officer Badmal need not be filled urgently as similar Safety Officer posts are lying vacant in other stations.

3.    The Ld. Counsel for the respondents has aruged that the basic principle behind the transfer is that the transfers have to be done as per the exigency of work which must not be allowed to be hampered.  Although the Govt. Departments endeavor to prepare a transfer policy, it also has to be kept in mind that the policy is only a guideline and not meant for a  compliance overriding the exigency of work. Hence when some infringments are there on the transfer policy what needs to be ensured is that the same is not due to any malafides and it does not cause undue hardship to the incumbent when weighed against exigency of work. The transfer should give best
possible optimisation of the available manpower by comparing the  expertise of the employees vis-a-vis the job that needs to be completed. Hence the transfer orders are best left to the administration and as far as possible there should be no judicial interference with the transfer order. In support of this basic principles he has cited six cases, all of them reiterating the principle that the transfer orders should not be interfered with in judicial review unless there is a gross violation of rules or malafide. The citations are:
1.  State of Maharashtra vs. Vinay Mohal Lal & Ors, W.P.(L) No.1636/2005 of the Hon. Bombay High Court.

2. M.A.T. Mumbai Judgements as under:       
  (1) O.A.No.179/2004 in the case of Shabbir   A Bale vs. State of Maharashtra &
(2) O.A. 188/2004 – Vijay U. Kor vs.
    State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(3) O.A. No. 22/7/2004 – Ajay B. Gangurde
    vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(4) O.A. 228/2004 Suresh P. Wani vs.
    State of Maharashtra & Ors.

3.  Writ Petition No. 2764 of 2004 in the case ofShabbir Abdul Bale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Of Hon. Bombay High Court.

4.  Writ Petition No. 4691/2003 of Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Trayambak Laxman Torane, vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

5.  Union of India vs. Era Educational Trust & Anr.  AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1573

    6.  Writ Petition No. 2172 of 2007 of Hon.
 Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Bhikamsing Dongarsing Rajput vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

4.     The Ld. Counsel for respondent  has pointed out that in the present case, the applicant is a very Senior Officer at the level of Joint G.M, his job is transferable all over India.  He has the expertise in chemicals which expertise is needed for various chemical related functions in Ordnance Factory  at Badmal. Further, he has also completed almost five years at Dehu Road, Pune in addition to the fact that in Junior Grade B he has spent longer part of his tenure in and around Pune.  As regards other officers pointed out by the applicant who have enjoyed a tenure of more than five years in and around Pune, the respondents submit that the higher authorities have to take into consideration the requirements of a particular work  site and the suitability of the persons to be sent there in such a manner that the production is not lost.  Since the Ordance Factory Organisation is dealing with crucial task of Defence Production, the exigency of work has to take precedence over other considerations. He submits that therefore, the O.A. should not be allowed.

5.      I have gone through the contentions of both the ld. Counsel and also all the records on the file.  I agree that transferring an officer for the exigencies of work is a requirement and prerogative of the administrative authorities.  As pointed out by the Ld.
Counsel for the respondents no malafide have been alleged, nor apparent from the record.  It is also stated that the applicant has 10 years of service left.  In view of all this, I do not see any merit in the O.A. and do not find any need to interfere with the transfer order dated 26.8.2011.  Suffice to express my trust that Badmal being a hard station, the department would consider him for a non-hard station in due course, as per transfer guidelines.

6.      O.A. is, therefore, dismissed.    The Ad-Interim Relief granted by this Tribunal  vide Order dated 15.11.2011 stands vacated. No order as to costs.

                             (Smt. Leena Mehendale)
                               Member (A)


No comments:

Post a Comment