Baiju A.V., Baiju KuriaKose, Shibumon K.S., Tibuthomas S/O E.J. Thomas v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 38837 OF 2023`** ``` PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1BAIJUA.V AGED42YEARS S/O.VASU,ANAKUZHIYIL,KALLARASOUTHP.O.,VAIKOM, - KOTTAYAM,PIN695308. 2BAIJUKURIAKOSE AGED48YEARS S/O.KURIAKOSE,CHANDIYIL,THALAYOLAPARAMBUP.O.,VAIKOM, - PIN686605. 3SHIBUMONK.S AGED52YEARS S/O.A.K.SREEDHARAN,KUTTIKKANATHADATHIL, - KURAVILANGADP.O.,KOTTAYAM,PIN686633. 4TIBUTHOMAS AGED41YEARS S/O.E.J.THOMAS,EZHATHADATHIL,PUTHUSSERYP.O.,KOTTAYAM, - PIN686636. BYADVS. JOHNSONMANAYANI JEEVANMATHEWMANAYANI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION(KSRTC) TRANSPORTBHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPBYITSMANAGING - DIRECTOR.,PIN695001. 2MANAGINGDIRECTOR KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION(KSRTC),TRANSPORT - BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695001. 3THECLUSTEROFFICER KOOTHATTUKULAMDEPOT,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT - CORPORATION(KSRTC),KOOTHATTUKULAMP.O,PIN686662. 4THECLUSTEROFFICER VAIKOMDEPOT,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION - (KSRTC),VAIKOMP.O,PIN686605. SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NO.38837OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that petitioners 1 to 3 are Drivers and the 4th petitioner is a Conductor working in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Their grievance in this writ petition concerns Ext.P2 transfer order by which petitioners 1 to 3 have been transferred from Vaikom to Nedumkandom, and the 4th petitioner has been transferred from Koothattukulam to Kattappana. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the transfer guidelines of the KSRTC have been blatantly violated by the respondents. It is submitted that prior to the issuance of the transfer order, the respondents were bound to issue a preliminary draft list and invite objections. The earlier transfer order passed by the respondents was frozen, and it was thereafter Ext.P2 was issued. They would contend that the petitioners are the seniormost in their respective stations, and it was without reckoning their seniority that the respondents have effected mass transfers. It is further submitted that the father of the 4th petitioner died on 11.6.2023, and by Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent, he has been exempted from transfer. The 4th petitioner is entitled to remain in the same station for a period of six months, which period is due to expire next month. According to them, if the petitioners are transferred to distant places, serious hardships would be caused. It is on these assertions that ``` WP(C)NO.38837OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- I. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other Writ, directions or Order, setting aside the transfer orders of the petitioners by way of Exts P1 and P2 i.e. transferring the petitioners 1 to 3 from Vaikom to Nedunkandam and the 4th petitioner from Koothattukulam to Kattappana. II. Declare that, the transfers of the petitioners by way of, Exts P1 and P2 and consequent proceedings are legally incorrect. III. To dispense with translation of Malayalam documents. 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 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** > 1 [1988 (2) KLT 258] ``` WP(C)NO.38837OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **Road Transport Corporation[2]** to substantiate his contention. 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 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, and it reads as under:- 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 conducted to first ascertain whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee. To hold otherwise would frustrate the > 2 [2023 (3) KLT 893] ``` WP(C)NO.38837OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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, 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 ``` WP(C)NO.38837OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 mandatory 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., is a matter 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. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent to the transfer is not sufficient ground 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. Furthermore, in **Babu** (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that guidelines for transfer are not statutory. They are meant for guidance in the matter of transfer and are not exhaustive either. In administration, a variety of situations not contemplated by the guidelines may arise, which have to be taken into ``` WP(C)NO.38837OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` account. Merely because a guideline has been violated in the matter of transfer, that would not by itself be a sufficient ground for interference. 7. As it appears from Ext.P6 that the Executive Director (Administration) has taken a decision to permit the 4th petitioner to continue in the same station for a period of six months from 11.6.2023, the respondents shall continue him to stay in the same unit itself till the expiry of the period mentioned in Ext.P6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be permitted to file a proper representation before the respondents, highlighting their grievances. It will be open to the petitioners to file a representation. If the same is filed, the same shall be considered, and appropriate orders shall be passed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` Sru ``` ``` WP(C)NO.38837OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38837/2023`** |`PETITIONERS EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`| ||`TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT`| ||`4.11.2023.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`| ||`TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT`| ||`4.11.2023.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 2.8.2023 IN WP(C)`| ||`NO.24048/2023 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF`| ||`KERALA.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 14.8.2023 IN`| ||`WP(C) NO.26605/2023 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT`| ||`OF KERALA.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25.8.2023 OF THE`| ||`HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C)`| ||`NO.28632/2023.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT DT 4.8.023, TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.`|