Chenthamarav v. Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and The District Transport Officer, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Palakkad

## **`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. 37498 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` CHENTHAMARAV AGED46YEARS S/OLATEVELAYUDHAN,PARAKKALHOUSE, NELLIPPADAM,NENMARAP.O.,PALAKKAD, – PIN678508 BYADVS. I.DINESHMENON L.RAJESHNARAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1CHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - PIN695023 2THEDISTRICTTRANSPORTOFFICER KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, OFFICEOFTHEDISTRICTTRANSPORTOFFICER, - PALAKKAD,PIN678001 SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON13.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C.) No. 37498 of 2023 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, presently employed as a Conductor Grade I at the Chittur Unit in Palakkad, contends that he belongs to the Parayan Community, a recognized Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe category. He has been serving in the KSRTC since 2010. The petitioner, who married on 19.3.2003, as is borne out from Ext.P1 marriage certificate, contends that his recent transfer from Chittur to Sulthan Bathery, as per Ext.P7 order, overlooks the incentive granted to individuals who enter into intercaste marriages. 2. The petitioner asserts that this transfer, occurring within three years, contravenes the Ext.P8 guidelines. According to the petitioner, the guidelines afford a five-year exemption from transfer to those in intercaste marriages. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 and P6 before the second respondent and Ext.P4 to the first respondent, requesting to revoke the order of transfer. 3. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents controverts the contentions and points out that the Ext.P8 guidelines clearly align with Government Orders, providing a five-year transfer exemption from the marriage date for those in intercaste marriages. Since the petitioner's marriage occurred in 2003, and he has been stationed at the W.P.(C.) No. 37498 of 2023 3 same location since 2010, no intervention is warranted, contends the learned counsel. 4. I have considered the submissions. I find from the marriage certificate placed before this Court that the petitioner had married in 2003. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, the guidelines are in tune with the Government orders, which provide a five-year transfer exemption for individuals who enter into intercaste marriages or belong to SC/ST communities, effective from the marriage date. In that view of the matter, the contention forcefully advanced by the petitioner is meritless. 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. 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 W.P.(C.) No. 37498 of 2023 4 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 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 W.P.(C.) No. 37498 of 2023 5 (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 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 W.P.(C.) No. 37498 of 2023 6 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 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 W.P.(C.) No. 37498 of 2023 7 into 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. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 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.P4 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. 37498 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37498/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED`| ||`19.3.03`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.5.2023`| ||`ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM TALUK OFFICE,`| ||`CHITTUR`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5.6.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.7.2023`| ||`BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`| ||`TRANSFER GUIDELINES DATED NIL`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5.9.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS`| ||`NO.700/CMD[SPC/2023/RTA DATED 4.11.2023`| |`Exhibit P8`|`RUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.[P]`| ||`NO.3/2017/UAPD DATED 25.2.2017`|