NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. versus SHRI BHAGWAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 11-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
v. 
SHRI BHAGWAN AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Trans.fer-Government or public undertaking employee-Transferable 
Posts-Employees tram:ferredfrom Corporate Office to new Project-Transfer 
orders challenged-Held, transfer is not only an incident but condition of 
service-Judicial Inte1ference-Scope of-Held, unless the transfer order is 
ma/a.fide or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer Courts/ 
Tribunals not to inte1fere. 
Respondents, B & P, were transferred from Corporate Office of the 
appellant to the Project at Itanagar. The transfer orders were challenged 
by respondents in writ petitions before High Court which were allowed 
and the transfer orders were set aside on the ground that Corporate Office 
and the Projects constitute different units for purposes of seniority under 
the Rules which bar the transfer of an employee from one seniority to 
another seniority unit except \\'ith his consent. However, High Court rejected 
the plea of malafides. Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended that transfer was an incident of service and was 
made in accordance with law and in public interest; that there was no 
F 
proof of malafides or contravention of any specific statutory provision in 
passing the transfer orders; that Rule 4.1.1 or Seniority Rules was 
misconstrued, completely overlooking R. 5.14 of the Recruitment Rules; 
that there was no loss of seniority of respondents since the projects were 
new; and that transfers were absolutely necessary for undertaking new 
G 
projects assigned to it in order to adjust staff from various Projects or 
Corporate Offices. 
Respondents contended that their seniority rights would be adversely 
affected by the transfer orders since the Corporate Office and Projects are 
distinct and separate entities for the purposes of seniority and such an 
H 
order could not have been made without their consent; and that construction 
18 
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPN. LTD. v. SHRI BHAGWAN 
19 
placed by High Court on the scope of Rule 4.1.1 of the Seniority Rules was 
A 
correct. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
} 
HELD : 1.1. It is by now well-settled that no Government servant or 
employee of public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at 
B 
any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed 
to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not 
only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest 
and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is 
shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in c 
violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts 
or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, 
as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision 
for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in the interest of 
administrative exigencies of the service concerned. [22-E-F] 
D 
1.2. In the instant case, Rule 4.1.1 of the Seniority Rules does not 
interdict any transfer of the employees from one Office or Project or Unit 
to any one of the other as along as the seniority of such an employee is 
protected based on the length of service with reference to the date of 
promotion or appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date 
E 
of transfer. No adverse consequences detrimental to the seniority of the 
respondents resulting from such transfer is bound to occur since the project 
undertaken to which they have been transferred is itself a new one. With 
the rejection of the plea of malafides, the High Court was not justified in 
interfering with the impugned orders of transfer. (22-H; 23-A; 22-E] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1095-1096 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana 
I 
High Court in W.P. Nos. 1686 & 1705 of 2000. 
G 
B. Datta and Ajit Pudussery for the Appellant. 
Jitendra Sharma, Ms. Minakshi Vij and P.N. Jha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
RAJU, J. The above appeals have been filed against the common order 
dated 1.8.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the orders of 
transfer of the respondents to Subansiri Hy

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.