JUDGMENT
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the office order dated 1st November, 2007 passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the employees of the cadre of Clerks/Assistants/Steno-typist of Commercial Taxes Department have been transferred outside their zones/divisions in violation of rules/guidelines.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is said to be an Association of the Jharkhand State Commercial Taxes Employees representing the employees of Jharkhand Commercial Taxes Department working within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand.
3. The State of Bihar, Department of Commercial Taxes, vide letter dated 12th July, 1979 had taken a decision that a divisional cadre will be constituted for Class-III and Class-IV employees except the Head Clerks and Senior Statistical Assistant.
4 Various divisions were formed in the Department and the employees working in their respective regions were treated as the members of the Divisional Cadre. Vide the office order dated 17th May, 1990. the administrative control of Class-III and Class-IV employees of Commercial Taxes Department is with the Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the said department. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, has been authorized to transfer the employees of Class-III and Class-IV Grade within the division and the Commissioner -cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, is only empowered for interdivisional transfer and that too after completion of the period of ten years in one division.
5. It has been stated that the Government had taken a decision dated 4th June, 1994 that only in special circumstance or in the circumstance of administrative exigency, there will be transfer of Class-III and Class-IV employees. The said decision of the State of Bihar is also applicable in the State of Jharkhand.
6. According to the petitioners, by Office Order No. 3005 dated 1st November. 2007, in the garb of administrative exigency, a mass transfer order has been issued by the respondent No. 3 contrary to the norms and guidelines. The said order has been issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, though he is not competent to issue such transfer order. Even the names of some of the persons, who have died, also appear in the transfer order. The names of some of the retired persons have also been included in the impugned transfer order. Some of the employees, who have not completed ten years in one division, have been also transferred. There has been, thus, irregularity on mass scale in issuing the said transfer order. The employees, who are gong to retire within one year, have also been transferred contrary to the policy decision. The petitioners filed representation before the concerned authorities, but the same was not heeded upon. The petitioners, thereafter, have filed this writ petition.
7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that the cadre of the non-gazetted employees posted in various fields/offices of the Commercial Taxes Department of the State is a State Cadre and they are liable for posting in any office of the department. Their promotion, grant of ACP and confirmation are dealt with at the headquarters level in the Commercial Taxes Department. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, it was found that most of the employees remained posted in a particular division for a period of much more than ten years. The department has reason to believe that many of the employees have formed nexus with the local traders and the functioning of the department has been affected. Under the said circumstance, an Establishment Committee was constituted with the approval of the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, comprising of one chairperson and two members. On the recommendation of the Establishment Committee and after approval of the proceeding of the said Committee by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Office Order No. 3005 dated 1st November, 2007 (Annexure-5) was issued for interdivisional transfer of Class-III employees. The transfer orders have been already given effect to as almost all the transferred employees have already joined their respective places of posting. It has been stated that it is wholly false to allege that the transfer order has been issued without any authority. The transfer order has been issued in view of the administrative exigency and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the departmental circular. If any person, whose name appears in the transfer order, is dead or retired, the transfer order would become ineffective in that case. The petitioners should not have any grievance on that ground as also the said ground is vague and unspecific.
8. In reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioners have stated that if the power of transfer has been given to deal with the case of emergency, it cannot be said that Class-III and Class-IV employees are not of Divisional Cadre. Such power is not meant for general inter-divisional transfer. Employees have been coerced to join their respective transferred posts even without handing over the charge, though there are number of anomalies in the impugned transfer order.
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. According to the petitioners, Class-III and Class-IV employees of the department are of Divisional Cadre and interdivision transfer is permissible only in special case and that too after ten years of posting in one division.
10. Mr. R.B. Mahto, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners referred to and relied on a decision of the Patna High Court in Ganesh Chandra Jha v. Steel Authority of India and Ors. 1992 (1) PLJR 165, and submitted that though the transfer is an incidence of service, a person cannot be transferred from one cadre to another cadre without his consent, unless there is such clear provision. He also relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Ramautar Sao v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2005 (4) PLJR 500, and a decision of this Court in Bidya Nand v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. , to fortify his submissions.
11. Mr. Pradip Modi, learned G.P.I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the impugned transfer order has been issued, on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee and with the approval of the competent authority of the department i.e. Secretary-cum-Commissioner and the same is not in any way arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. There has been mass transfer in view of the administrative exigency and also in view of the report that the employees who remained at one place for a long period had developed nexus with the local traders. The transfer has also been made for proportionate distribution of hands to properly regulate the working of the offices of different divisions. The transfer is an incidence of service and it is well within the jurisdiction of the respondents to transfer its employees according to their need and exigency.
12. The respondents have contended that the transfer has been made on the basis of recommendation of the Establishment Committee with the approval of the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department. The proceeding of the Establishment Committee has also been approved by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department. All the transferred employees have Joined their respective places of posting. The petitioners have not contradicted the said contention of the respondents. Even the petitioners have stated that the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the department has got power to order interdivision transfer.
13. In the case of Ganesh Chandra Jha (supra), some employees were sent from one department to another department on the ground of reduction in workload. Both the departments having their own seniority lists. The Court held that the transfer in such case amounts to change of cadre and such transfer from one department to another resulting disadvantages to the employees amounts to change in the service condition, which is not permissible.
14. In Ramavtar Sao’s case (supra), a Class-III employee of the district cadre was transferred in the office of the Director i.e. secretariat level, though the pay structure of the secretariat is completely different from Class-III employee of Mufassil. In that case, the Court held that normally the change of cadre is not permissible and there was no plausible explanation to show under what circumstance, the cadre of respondent No. 3 was changed. The said two decisions have absolutely no application to the facts of the instant case.
15. In Bidya Nand’s case (supra), the petitioner was transferred only after six months of his joining to the place and that too for accommodating another person, who has been transferred from that place just about 15 days back. The said decision has also got no application to the facts of this case.
16. In the instant case, there is mass transfer, which has been done with the recommendation of the Establishment Committee duly approved by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department. The respondents have also explained the reason that such transfer has been made in view of the creation of the State of Jharkhand in order to balance the staff position in different divisions.
17. Though the petitioner No. 1, claiming an Association of the transferred employees, has challenged the transfer order, its members have already joined their respective places of transfer giving effect to the transfer order.
18. Having considered the facts, material and submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, I find no cogent ground to hold the impugned transfer order as arbitrary or without jurisdiction.
19. For the reasons discussed above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.