Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Dayaldas Fulwani, was an employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (MSETCL) working as a Junior Engineer at Bhusawal. He was transferred by order dated 30-09-2013 from Bhusawal to Nashik. The petitioner challenged the transfer order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the transfer was malafide, arbitrary, and in violation of the company's transfer policy. He contended that the transfer was made at the behest of respondent no. 7, Ram Tukaram Shelke, who had personal animosity against him. The respondents argued that the transfer was made in administrative exigency and was a routine incident of service. The court examined the transfer policy and found that the petitioner was transferred to the same cadre and within the same zone, which was permissible. The court held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless the order is malafide or contrary to statutory rules. The petitioner failed to prove malafides or any violation of the transfer policy. The court also noted that the transfer policy was not a statutory rule and did not confer any enforceable right. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Exigency - Transfer order challenged as arbitrary and malafide - Court held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless it is malafide or contrary to statutory rules - Petitioner failed to establish malafides or violation of transfer policy - Transfer to same cadre and location within same zone - Held that transfer order was valid and not liable to be quashed (Paras 1-10). B) Service Law - Transfer Policy - Enforceability - Transfer policy of a company is not a statutory rule and does not confer any enforceable right on employees - Mere breach of policy does not make transfer order illegal unless it is arbitrary or discriminatory - Held that the transfer policy was not violated in the present case (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order of the petitioner from Bhusawal to Nashik was arbitrary, malafide, and violative of the transfer policy of the respondent company.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer order is an incident of service
- not punitive unless stigmatic
- Courts should not interfere with transfer orders made in administrative exigency unless malafide or violative of statutory rules
- Transfer policy guidelines are not statutory and do not confer enforceable rights
