Babuk v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ltd & Ors.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 37504 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` BABUK AGED47YEARS S/OVASU,NEDUMPALLAMHOUSE - VANDITHAVALAMP.O,PALAKKAD,PIN678534 BYADVS. I.DINESHMENON L.RAJESHNARAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1CHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONLTD TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - PIN695023 2THEDISTRICTTRANSPORTOFFICER KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, OFFICEOFTHEDISTRICTTRANSPORTOFFICER, - PALAKKAD.,PIN678001 ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON13.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he is presently working as a Conductor Grade I in the Chittur Unit, Palakkad. He states that he belongs to the Panan Community, which falls under the SC/ST category. According to the petitioner, he has been working in the KSRTC from 2010 onwards. The contention of the petitioner is that he has now been transferred from Chittur to Sulthan Bathery by Ext.P8 order. He states that going by the KSRTC Pay Revision Agreement Anneuxre IV Clause 9.8, persons belonging to SC/ST category are exempted from transfer for a period of five years during their period of service, and the said benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that he had been transferred within a span of two years of his previous transfer, and this order is in the teeth of Ext.P9 guidelines issued by the Government. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Orders calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same as regards the petitioner is W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 3 concerned; ii. issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Orders commanding the respondents not to transfer the petitioner based on Ext.P8 till such time Ext.P7 is considered by the 1st respondent and Ext.P3 is considered by the 2nd respondent; iii. issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Orders commanding the respondents to grant the benefit of exemption from transfer to the petitioner for a period of 5 years based on Ext.P4; 2. Sri. I. Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in transferring the petitioner within a span of two years. It is submitted that seeking the benefit of Ext.P4, the petitioner has submitted separate representations and the same has not been considered. It is further submitted that being a member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe category, he was entitled to claim exemption from transfer for a period of five years throughout his service. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there are almost 18,000 employees and it is on account of administrative exigencies and to streamline the operations that a general W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 4 transfer order has been issued which affects almost 4000 personnel. According to the learned counsel, the majority of Conductors who are working in the KSRTC are from the northern part of Kerala and the majority of drivers are from the southern part. It is submitted that for administrative exigencies and to accede to the long pending request of various employees who are working out of their home unit that the general transfer order was issued. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in **Babu V State of Kerala[1]** , and it is argued that the orders of transfer made in the exercise of administrative discretion may not be interfered with under Art.226 of the Constitution **.** Reliance is also placed on **Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation[2]** to substantiate his contention. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been working in the same station since 2010 and in that view of the matter, the benefit of Ext.P4 order cannot be extended to him. 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. In **Nixy** (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to encapsulate the law relating to the transfer of employee by > 1 1988 (2) KLT 258 > 2 [2023 (3) KLT 893] W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 5 referring to the precedents in a lucid manner. It would be appropriate to extract paragraph Nos. 6 to 9, which I feel applies to the facts of the instant case. 6. Law is too well settled that, transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. It is also well settled that, unless the orders of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or mala fides, Courts should be loathe in interfering with the same. Courts will be extremely circumspect, will act with restraint and may not ponder into hairsplitting arguments, to scan the decisions in orders of transfer. The Corporation cannot effectually work when the employees act intolerably or spitefully amongst themselves or is engaged in activities which go against the best interests of the Corporation. Transfer can be effected on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper administration and to sub-serve internal discipline. 7. When an employee is transferred to maintain the smooth running of an organization, it is not to be understood as a punishment. The element of punishment is absent therein. The idea is to maintain the internal harmony of the organisation and to safeguard its smooth functioning. In every case of erratic or in appropriate behaviour by a subordinate, the employer is not bound to initiate departmental action and to impose punishment. For effecting a transfer, there need not be any enquiry W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 6 conducted to first ascertain whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee. To hold otherwise would frustrate the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration, to enforce a decorum and ensure probity. 8. The question whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division etc., are matters for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. It is he who knows best, where an employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his/her duties for the establishment. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent on the transfer are not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in public interest. (Babu v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 258), Vasu v. High Court of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 16), Dinamony v. Dt. Superintendent of Police, Kollam (1994 (1) KLT 326), P.Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board (Ker.) (1978 KLT 539= 1979 (1) SLR 309), Rajan v. Director General of Police (1999 (2) KLT 673), Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar ((1990 (2) KLT OnLine 1156 (SC) = 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659), Union of India v. S.L.Abbas (1993 (1) KLT OnLine 1086 (SC) = ((1993) 4 SCC 357), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan (2001 (3) KLT OnLine 1058 = (2001) 8 SCC 574), Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Janardhan Debanath & Anr. (2004 (1) KLT OnLine 1353 (SC) = (2004) 4 SCC 245), Divyamol R.S. v. Director General Central Industrial Security Force, W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 7 New Delhi & Ors. (2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1093 = 2022 (5) KHC 732). 9. In addition to the law on transfers as noticed supra, it is appropriate to refer to clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines in Appendix-IV of the Long-Term Settlement Agreement, 2012 of the Corporation. A copy of the same has been produced along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-R1(a). Clause 11 thereof deals with “Transfer on Administrative ground due to disciplinary issues”. Therefore, the Corporation is enabled even under the Transfer Guidelines to effect transfers of its employees on administrative grounds, to maintain a harmonious and working atmosphere at its offices. 6. This Court has held that the transfer is an incidence of service, and the employee has no legal right to interdict the same unless there are materials to suggest that the order of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or mala fides. Transfer can be effected on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper administration and to sub-serve internal discipline. The question of whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division, etc., are matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 8 employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent to the transfer is not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in the public interest. Furthermore, as per the relevant clause of the Transfer Guidelines in Appendix-IV of the Long-Term Settlement Agreement, 2012, the Corporation is entitled to effect transfers of its employees on administrative grounds to maintain a harmonious working atmosphere at its offices. A person who has been working in the same station since 2010 cannot claim the entitlement of staying in the same place when exigency of service demands his transfer. Furthermore, in **Babu** (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that guidelines for transfer are not statutory and they are meant for guidance in the matter of transfer. They are not exhaustive. In administration, a variety of situations not contemplated by the guidelines may arise which have to be taken into account. Merely because a guideline has been violated in the matter of transfer, that would not by itself be a sufficient ground for W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 9 interference. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the 1st respondent and requests that directions be issued to the said authority to consider the same and take a decision. Having regard to the submissions advanced while dismissing this writ petition, I direct the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P7 and take a decision as per procedure and in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent to ensure compliance. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** NS/14/11/2023 W.P.(C.) No. 37504 of 2023 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37504/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5.6.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5.9.2023 BEFORE`| ||`THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`| ||`GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFER DATED NIL`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 12.10.2023`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2023`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.7.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES PROCEEDINGS`| ||`NO.700/CMD[SPC/2023/RTA DATED 4.11.2023`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.[P]`| ||`NO.3/2017/UAPD DATED 25.2.2017`|