Savita Gupta v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent- New India Assurance Company Limited, challenging the orders dated 4.4.2013, 2.4.2013, 16.4.2013 and 18.4.2013 to the limited extent that though promotion in terms of these orders be given, however the petitioner be not transferred from Delhi to Mathura consequent to her being promoted.

2. Counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner being a lady 2013:DHC:2029 officer should be accommodated by not being transferred from Delhi to Mathura which is at a distance of 160 Km. It is also argued that as per the transfer policy of the respondent an employee who has stayed longer in Delhi should be preferred first for transfer and only thereafter the petitioner should have been transferred. The relevant portion of the transfer policy which is relied upon reads as under:-

“D. GENERAL REGULATIONS The company shall on annual basis, determine the cadre strength in each cadre in terms of norms adopted. Distribution of such strength among the individual Regions and H.O. in each cadre shall be determined by a Committee of General Managers (Personnel & Marketing) so as to ensure need based and equitable distribution of available manpower. (ii)On completion of NPP, an officer may be considered for transfer from existing place of posting irrespective of assignment. This exercise shall be done during the first quarter of every year. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the powers of the Management to transfer any officer before completion of the normal period of posting.

(iii) While considering the transfers on account of NPP under para C(4) above, if the number of officers for consideration of such transfer in any cadre is found to be large at a particular station, and transfers of all at one time is likely to dislocate the operation of the Company, CMD may allow consideration of such transfers in a phased manner. While restricting transfers in such a phased manner the order of transfer shall be in accordance with the length of continuous posting i.e the longer the posting, the first to be considered for transfer.”

3. On the basis of last three lines of the aforesaid para D of the transfer policy, it is argued that the petitioner is being discriminated against inasmuch as one Smt. Rama Malik has been in Delhi from 31.3.2003 and the petitioner has been in Delhi from the year 2004 and therefore it is Smt. Rama Malik who should be transferred and not the petitioner.

4. I may at the outset state that the transfer is an incident of service. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with transfer orders because organizations know best how they are run and which employee is to be posted where as per the needs of the organizations. It is only in very limited cases of violation of policy/rules or gross malafides that the Courts interfere in the transfer orders.

5. In the present case petitioner has got promotion and thereafter she has been transferred to Mathura. The clause relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case because the lines of clause which have been relied upon pertain to the position where suddenly lots of transfers have taken place and therefore in order not to affect the working of an establishment, transfers are made in a phased manner and consequently the person who has stayed longer at a place will be posted earlier, that too at the discretion of the CMD.

6. In the present case, there is no case as set up or established of the establishment at Delhi being affected on account of large scale transfers and therefore the clause and the lines relied upon by the petitioner have no application.

7. Let me now assume that clause which is relied upon applies, however, even if the clause applies then on the admitted case of the petitioner also it is not as if Smt. Rama Malik is not being transferred and in fact Smt. Rama Malik has been transferred to Sahibabad in U.P., though the same is much lesser distance than Mathura. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner can contend that Smt. Rama Malik who was posted for a longer period in Delhi is not being transferred and effectively the contention of the petitioner boils down to that Courts must take into account various distances for transfer of an employee. In my opinion, this is quite impermissible both ordinarily as also in the present case.

8. I may note that the petitioner very conveniently wants promotion and is only challenging the impugned orders limited to the transfer portion of the order. Petitioner cannot have her cake and eat it too and claim that she wants promotion but she does not want to be transferred. As already stated above, transfer being an incident of service it is not permissible for the petitioner to conveniently only challenge the portion of the impugned order which transfers the petitioner from Delhi to Mathura, transfer/postings being administrative/functional requirements of an organization. I also note, and though it may not be too much relevant, that it is not as if the petitioner is being posted in a remote or far flung area or a place at a very long distance from Delhi. Mathura, after all would hardly be at a distance of about two hours from Delhi, and well connected by both rail and road even for daily commuting.

9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 23, 2013 Ne