Tadi Tabi v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Refineries Division)

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 5547/2025 titled Tadi Tabi v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Refineries Division), dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. By the above Writ Petition, the appellant had assailed the Order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the respondent herein, by which the appellant had been transferred from the post of Chief Manager (Refinery-Coord) at Paradip RC to the same post, that is, Chief Manager (Refinery-Coordination), at Barauni Terminal of the respondent.

3. The appellant has challenged the Impugned Order as well as his transfer, primarily on the following three grounds:a) That the appellant, in terms of Clause 7 of the Transfer Policy-2024 (‘TP-2024’) dated 18.11.2024 issued by the respondent, had applied for a transfer posting to Arunachal Pradesh, where his wife is posted. This request of the appellant was not considered by the respondent prior to the passing of the transfer order that transferred the appellant to Barauni. b) That as per the TP-2024, the minimum tenure at a location/cluster of cities is three completed calendar years. The appellant urges that he had been posted at Paradip only on 28.03.2022 and, therefore, had not even completed his minimum term, that is, three calendar years, when the transfer order was issued. c) That the appellant has various health issues and had also suffered a mild brain stroke on 28.09.2024. He also suffers from depression and is undergoing constant treatment. This important factor was also not considered by the respondent before issuing the transfer order.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Transfer Policy as well as various other documents in support of the above challenges of the appellant.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that all the above requests and grounds of the appellant have been duly considered by the respondent while re-asserting his transfer to Barauni. He submits that even the learned Single Judge considered the above grounds and found no merit in the same. He submits that, therefore, there is no ground for interfering with the decision taken by the respondent due to administrative exigency.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. As far as the joint posting of spouses is concerned, the learned Single Judge has considered the case set up by the respondent in detail, observing as under:-

disciplinary proceedings were taken, and contended that those officers were posted back to the locations in question. Even assuming, for the present, that this is accurate, it does not, in my view, lead to the conclusion that the respondent is bound to post the petitioner back in the same location. Once again, these are managerial decisions, which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Mala fides require a very high degree of proof, as laid down by the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar. In E.P. Royappa, the Supreme Court held that the allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. The petitioner has not, in my view, been able to meet the high threshold required for a challenge to a transfer order on grounds of mala fides. xxxxxxx

26. Be that as it may, even assuming that this policy covers the present case, I do not find any support for the contention that such joint posting is mandatory. Several judgments of the Supreme Court hold that joint posting of spouses is always subject to administrative exigencies, and does not give an enforceable right to a government/public employee. Mr. Koura has, for this purpose, relied upon the following observations in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta: The said judgment has been followed in S.L. Abbas, which holds as follows:

Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline, however, does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” The same view has been followed more recently, in S.K. Naushad Rahaman also.

27. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned transfer order under Article 226 of the Constitution, either on the ground that it is premature, or that it is in violation of a policy for joint posting of spouses. The respondent’s decision not to accept the petitioner’s requested transfer locations has also been justified adequately. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of violation of statutory Rules/ Transfer Policy, or mala fides, which are required for interference with a transfer order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.”

8. We see no reason to interfere with the above findings of the learned Single Judge.

9. In the present case, once the respondent has considered the above request of the appellant for joint posting of spouses and due to administrative exigencies, found that there is no suitable position available in the place where the appellant is seeking his posting, no fault can be found in the decision of the respondent.