IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Writ Petition Nos.27157 & 27158 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2009
R.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.27157/2009
P.Mathialagan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.27158/2009
Vs.
1. The Director (HRD),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
Janpath Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The General Manager (Finance),BSNL,
Seerangpalayam,
Salem 636 007.
4. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai. .. Respondents in both the W.Ps.
The writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order in Original Application Nos. 1029/09 & 1027/09 respectively dated 11.12.2009 of the fourth respondent and order bearing No.E13-6/TM-TFR/08/LDF dated 6.8.2008 of the third respondent and the order bearing No.TSB/23-249/09/II/4 dated 16.10.2009 of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to retain the petitioner as Telephone Mechanic in the same station i.e., External RSU, Salem Main and pass appropriate orders for retention.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ramesh COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus these two writ petitions have been brought forth. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The Court is of the considered opinion that both these writ petitions do not require admission in the hands of this Court. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as telephone mechanics at different offices in Salem in the year 1974 and 1972 respectively. They have been working there for more than three decades. The order of transfer was served upon them on 6.8.2008 whereby the petitioners, Mr.Chandrasekaran was transferred to Omalur and Mr.Mathialagan was transferred to Namagiripet. They made representations on 19.9.2008 requesting that the transfer order may be kept in abeyance till March 2009 in view of personal reasons. Accordingly, they were not relieved from their posts and they were retained in the same place for some time. Subsequently, an order of transfer was passed transferring them to the above said respective places. Against the said transfer order, the petitioners made representation on 30.5.2009 and 13.7.2009 respectively, requesting to cancel the transfer order and allow them to continue at Salem. Pending the same, they filed two original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. With a direction to dispose of their representations, both the Original Applications were disposed of. Subsequently, the respondent BSNL made an order on 16.10.2009 rejecting the petitioners claim to cancel the transfer order. Aggrieved over the same, they filed two Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging those orders. After giving opportunity to both sides, the Tribunal took a view that the appeal did not carry any merit and dismissed the same. Under such circumstances, these writ petitions have arisen before the Court.
4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that there was a transfer policy of the respondent dated 7.5.2008. As per the same, if an employee has crossed the age of 56 years as on 1st March, 2009, he should not be transferred. Both these petitioners have crossed the age of 56 years and they were actually relieved from duty on 20.5.2009. Thus, the order of transfer is violative of the transfer policy.
5. Added further that there was number of persons who were already transferred and subsequently, their transfer orders have been cancelled, but insofar as these petitioners are concerned, it was not cancelled. Originally, the order of transfer was challenged before the Tribunal and there was a direction to consider the representation of the petitioners. Even without taking into consideration the transfer policy and also the representation of the petitioners, the respondent BSNL has rejected the request for cancellation of the transfer order. Though all these aspects were brought to the notice of the 4th respondent Tribunal, the 4th respondent has not considered the same. Under such circumstances, the transfer order is violative of the transfer policy of the BSNL. Hence, it has got to be set aside.
6. After looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions lacks merits from all corners. It is not in controversy that both the writ petitioners Mr.Chandrasekaran and Mr.Mathialagan were appointed as telephone mechanic in the year 1974 and 1972 respectively and for three decades they were serving in Salem in their respective posts. They have been transferred to Omalur and Namagiripet respectively i.e., within a short distance. It is also an admitted position that the said post itself is a transferable one and nowhere the petitioners have pointed out that the transfer order was passed with malafide intention and what was adduced in the transfer order is that the transfer has become necessary for the purpose of ensuring efficiency and to provide quality service to the public.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners much relied on the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy, 2007. Even according to him, the employees who have crossed the age of 56 years as on 1st March 2009, should not be transferred. In the instant case, originally, the transfer order was not made on 20.5.2009. It was originally made on 6.8.2008. Therefore, the contention now putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the transfer order was served upon them on 20.5.2009 cannot be taken as the date of transfer. Apart from the above, when the transfer order was served on them on 6.8.2008, the petitioners gave representations to the respondent BSNL stating that the said transfer order may be kept in abeyance till March 2009 in view of personal reason and accordingly, it was kept in abeyance. This Court is unable to see either violation of transfer Policy of BSNL or any malafide. Contrarily, it was against their undertaking given to the BSNL that the transfer order may be kept in abeyance till March 2009. Now, they cannot be allowed to state that the order of transfer has to be cancelled.
8. The Tribunal has considered all the above aspects and has passed the order. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
vsi
To
1. The Director (HRD),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
Janpath Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The General Manager (Finance),BSNL,
Seerangpalayam,
Salem 636 007.
4. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai