LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus MURALIDHARA MENON & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 540 A UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ·" ' v. MURALIDHARA MENON & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5079 of 2009) B AUGUST 4, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ] Service Law: :..--- c Transfer - Held: Is an incident of service - An employee has no right to be posted at a particular place - He cannot exercise his option to be posted in his home State unless there exists any statute or statutory rule governing the field. D Transfer - Respondents-employees voluntarily agreed for reversion from post of UDC to post of LDC in order to get transferred from 'Gujarat charge' to 'Kera/a charge' - Transfer orders issued on basis of specific undertaking filed by respondents - Challenge to - Circular letter issued by CBDT dated 14-5-1990 in relation to inter-charge transfer - E Interpretation and/or application of - Held: Respondents did not have any legal right to be transferred from one charge to another - Having given an undertaking and having opted to be transferred on post of LDC, respondents could not have resiled therefrom - They could not approbate and reprobate F at the same tirnr:J - If an order was pass~d on their representations, they were bound thereby particularly when the circular letter itself suggested that the order of transfer passed would be final and no order for retransfer could be passed - Principle of ·estoppel' was clearly applicable - However, G directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution - Doctrines - Doctrine of "estoppel" - Constitution of India, 1950 )r ' - Article 142. Constitution of India, 1950 --Article 14 -- Equality clause H 540 ·-r UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. MURALIDHARA MENON 541 & ANR. - Held: Is a positive concept in terms whereof, equals, subject A to certain exceptions, are to be treated equally and unequals cannot be treated equally. Respondents voluntarily agreed for reversion from the post of UDC to the post of LDC in order to get 8 transferred from 'Gujarat charge' to 'Kerala charge'. Transfer orders were issued on basis of specific undertaking filed by the respondents in this behalf. However, the said transfer orders were subsequently challenged by the Respondents. In view of the said C challenge, interpretation and/or application of circular letter issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 14-5-1990 in relation to inter-charge transfer came up for consideration in the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1. Respondents did not have any legal right to be transferred from one charge to another. Indisputably, the seniority of the LDCs and UDCs was maintained chargewise. It is evident that the Board E considered the matter carefully and found that there had been no vacancy of UDC in 'Kerala Charge' so as to _.._ enable the authorities to accommodate them on the basis of inter charge transfer. However, it was found that the vacancies in the posts of LDC were available. Only on that basis, the respondents volunteered to be transferred to the posts of LDC. It.was at their request-as also undertakings furnished by them, the order of transfers was passed. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] [548-B; 548-E-F; 548- G] F G 2. Article 14 of the Constitution providing for the equality clause is a positive concept in terms whereof, the e'quals, subject to certain exceptions, are to be treated equally and unequals cannot be treated equally. If a relaxation has been granted in case of one employee on H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A the basis of the materials available before the Board, the )-. same by itself may not be treated to be a binding precedent so as to enable the Tribunal or High Court to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. A writ of mandamus can be issued, provided there exists a legal B right in the applicant and a corresponding legal duty in the respondent. Even otherwise a Superior Court having a limited jurisdiction in this behalf would not interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the statutory authorities unless a clear case for interference -- c is made out subject of course to just exceptions. The attention of this Court was not drawn to any provision under the aforementioned circular or otherwise that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had any power of relaxation. If there are no vacancies, orders of transfer . D could not be made. In absence of any power of relaxation, the respondents could not have been .,._
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.