Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that while the appellant contended violation of transfer guidelines, executive instructions in the form of transfer guidelines do not confer an indefeasible right upon an employee. The Court noted that there were no allegations of mala fides or violation of any statutory provision. The Court also observed that it was not known whether the person transferred to the appellant's post had joined, and such a transferred employee was not made a party respondent. The Court found no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, considering the matter in its entirety, the Court directed that if the appellant files a representation within 7 days from the date of the order, it shall be disposed of within 15 days thereafter, with intimation to the appellant. This modification was made to the order of the learned Single Judge.

Facts

The appellant, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, a constable in the Excise Department, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), transferring him from Bilaspur to Raigarh. The appellant argued that the transfer violated Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, which limits Class-III employee transfers to 10% of the cadre strength, whereas approximately 88% of constables had been transferred. He also contended that as President of the Rajya Karmchari Sangh, District Bilaspur, he was protected from transfer for three years from his appointment as President on July 4, 2020. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that transfer policies do not confer indefeasible rights and citing Supreme Court judgments on the nature of transfers. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal against the Single Judge's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 23, 2022, is vitiated by a violation of Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, concerning the percentage of Class-III employees that can be transferred? 2. Whether the appellant, as an office bearer of the Rajya Karmchari Sangh, is protected from transfer for a period of three years from his appointment as President? Petitioner's Arguments: - The transfer order violates Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, as approximately 88% of constables (229 out of 250) have been transferred, exceeding the permissible 10% limit for Class-III employees. - The appellant is protected from transfer for three years from his appointment as President of the Rajya Karmchari Sangh, District Bilaspur, on July 4, 2020, as per the prevailing policy. - The learned Single Judge failed to consider the aspect of his protection as an office bearer. - In the alternative, the transfer order should be suspended until his representation is considered, as per the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents' counsel stated they had instructions that in many cases, transferred constables were relieved on the day of transfer, but had no specific instruction regarding the appellant's case. - The learned Single Judge relied on Supreme Court judgments in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others and Namrata Verma vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, and Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, to hold that transfer policies do not confer indefeasible rights and that transfers are an incident of service.