Skip to content


Sheo Narayan Ram Vs. Agriculture Department - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantSheo Narayan Ram
RespondentAgriculture Department
Excerpt:
.....grievance   against   his  transfer vide notification dated 29th june, 2016.  2. heard learned counsel for the parties.  3. mr. krishna murari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits  that order dated 29.06.2016 has been issued not only in breach of  resolution dated 8th may, 2012 and prematurely, the said order is  actuated   with   malice   inasmuch   as,   the   petitioner   has   been  transferred   to   accommodate   respondent   no.   4   to   the   post   of  managing director, jhascolamp.  referring to various documents,  learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is  5 years senior to respondent no. 4 and has been granted pay scale in  grade   pay  .....
Judgment:

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI                              W. P. (S) No.  3589 of 2016 ­­ Sheo Narayan Ram, son of Lutam Ram, resident of  2A, Tirupati Tower, Sainik Colony Road, Behind Pitamber Palace, Booty More, P.O. & P.S.­ Dumdarga, District­Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... Petitioner  vs.­ 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief  Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O.­Dhurwa,  P.S.­Jagarnathpur, District­Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture,  Animal Husbandry and Co­operative (Cooperative Wing), Project Bhawan,  P.O.­Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District­Ranchi(Jharkhand) 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co­operative (Cooperative  Wing), Project Bhawan,  P.O.­Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District­Ranchi(Jharkhand) 4. Ram Kumar Prasad, presently working and  posted as District Cooperative Officer,  Department of Co­operative, Project Bhawan,  P.O.­Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,  District­Ranchi(Jharkhand) .....Respondents.  ­­­­­­                  CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ­­­­­ For the Petitioner    : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the Respondents : J. C to Sr. S.C.II For the Respondent no. 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate  ­­­­­­              6/17.11.2016 Alleging   breach   of   statutory   rules   under   Resolution  dated   8th   May,   2012,   the   petitioner   raises   a   grievance   against   his  transfer vide notification dated 29th June, 2016.  2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.  3. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits  that order dated 29.06.2016 has been issued not only in breach of  Resolution dated 8th May, 2012 and prematurely, the said order is  actuated   with   malice   inasmuch   as,   the   petitioner   has   been  transferred   to   accommodate   respondent   no.   4   to   the   post   of  Managing Director, JHASCOLAMP.  Referring to various documents,  learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is  5 years senior to respondent no. 4 and has been granted pay scale in  Grade   Pay   of   Rs.   7600/­   is   eligible   to   hold   the   post   of   Managing  Director,   JHASCOLAMP   whereas,   the   respondent   no.   4   is,   in   fact, 2. ineligible.   Learned   counsel   has   relied   on   decisions   in  “Uttam   Kujur   ­Vs.­   State   of   Jharkhand   &   Ors.”   reported   in  (2008) 2 JCR 306 (Jhr.) and “Suraj Deo Ram Vs.­ State of Jharkhand  & Ors.” reported in (2008) 2 JCR 83 (Jhr.).  4. Learned   counsel   for   the   State   and   Respondent   no.   4   have  appeared through counsels.  5. Mr.   Anil   Kumar   Sinha,   learned   Senior   counsel   for   the  respondent no. 4 referring to Notification dated 15th October, 2014  vide   Annexure­1,   submits   that   the   petitioner,   who   has   raised   a  grievance of premature transfer, was, in fact, posted on the post of  Managing   Director,   JHASCOLAMP   only   till   further   orders.  Contending that there is no illegality in order dated 29th June, 2016,  learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner cannot claim a  right over a particular post or posting to a particular place.  6. Learned State counsel has also opposed the prayer made in  the writ petition.   7. Briefly   stated,   the   petitioner,   who   was   appointed   on  1st November, 1990 in the State Cooperative Service, was posted as  Managing   Director,   JHASCOLAMP   vide   notification  dated 15th October, 2014.   At that time, he was holding the post of  Principal,   Co­operative   Training   Center   at   Ranchi.     The   said  notification indicates that he was holding the additional charge of  Managing   Director,   Central   Co­operative   Bank   Ltd.,   Ranchi   also.  Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   relied   on   Resolution  dated 8th May, 2012, which allegedly has been held to be statutory,  to contend that usual tenure of a post shall be three years and only in  special circumstances the incumbent can be transferred.   8. Contention   that   the   petitioner   has   been   transferred   only 3. to accommodate respondent no. 4 is misconceived.  The petitioner,  who   was   previously   given   additional   charge,  cannot   object   to   the  order by which respondent no. 4 has been given additional charge of  Managing   Director,   JHASCOLAMP.     Notification   dated   29th   June,  2016 discloses the respondent no. 4 has been posted to the post of  District Co­operative Officer, Ranchi. Since, he has also been given  additional charge of Managing Director, JHASCOLAMP, an inference  cannot   be   drawn   that   the   petitioner   has   been   transferred   to  accommodate   respondent   no.   4.     Moreover,   order   whereby   the  respondent   no.   4   has   been   given   additional   charge   of   Managing  Director, JHASCOLAMP is not the final order. Such arrangements are  obviously ad­hoc arrangements.

9. It   is   contended   that   in   the   present   proceeding   the  Respondent­State has not pleaded that transfer of the petitioner was  under   special   circumstances.     This   contention   is   apparently  mis­conceived. Notification dated 29th June, 2016 is not an order in  isolation,   transferring   the   petitioner   alone.   It   contains   order   of  transfer/posting of as many as 16 persons. It has been issued in the  month of June, which in terms of Resolution dated 8th May, 2012  shall be the month for effecting transfer. Stipulation that the normal  tenure shall be 3 years is merely a guideline and it is necessary to  disclose   special   circumstance   only   if   an   individual   has   been  picked­up for transfer. In my opinion, nothing more is required to be  shown   by   the   respondents,   for   justifying   the   order   of   transfer  dated 29.06.2016.   10. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   contended   that   the  respondent has not replied to the plea taken by the petitioner that  without   approval   of   the   Establishment   Committee,   the   aforesaid 4. transfer order has been issued. In my opinion, such issues cannot be decided merely on the basis of affidavits. No person in his individual  capacity against whom the petitioner can allege malafide, has been  made a party in the present proceeding. I am of the opinion that the  petitioner has failed to show that Notification dated 29th June, 2016,  whereby   he   has   been   transferred,   has   been   issued   in   breach   of  Resolution dated  8th  May, 2012.   The petitioner has also failed  to  plead and prove malafide.  It is well­settled that normally courts do  not   interfere   with   the   administrative   decisions   taken   by   the  executive.   In  “Kendriya  Vidyalay   Sangathan   vs.   Damodar   Prasad   Panday   and   others”  reported   in  (2004)   12   SCC   299,   the   Hon'ble  Supreme Court has observed thus; 4. “Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to   be interfered with by courts unless it is shown to be   clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction   of  any  prescribed  norms  of  principles  governing the   transfer   (see   Abani   Kanta   Ray   v.   State   of   Orissa   [1995   Supp   (4)   SCC   169].   Unless   the   order   of   transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation   of   operative   guidelines,   the   court   cannot   interfere   with it (see Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4   SCC   357]).   Who   should   be   transferred   and   posted   where is a matter for the administrative authority to   decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala   fides   or   is   made   in   violation   of   any   operative  guidelines   or   rules   the   courts   should   not   ordinarily  interfere   with   it.   In   Union   of   India   v.   Janardhan   Debanath   [(2004)   4   SCC   245]   it   was   observed   as   follows:  'No   government   servant   or   employee   of   a   public undertaking has any legal right to be   posted forever at any one particular place or   place   of   his   choice   since   transfer   of   a   particular employee appointed to the class or 5. category of transferable posts from one place   to   another   is   not   only   an   incident,   but   a   condition   of   service,   necessary   too   in   public   interest   and   efficiency   in   the   public   administration. Unless an order of transfer is   shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise  or   stated   to   be   in   violation   of   statutory   provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the   courts   or   the   tribunals   normally   cannot   interfere   with   such   orders   as   a   matter   of   routine,   as   though   they   were   the   appellate   authorities substituting their own decision for   that of the employer/management, as against   such   orders   passed   in   the   interest   of   administrative   exigencies   of   the   service   concerned.   This   position   was   highlighted   by   this   Court   in   National   Hydroelectric   Power   Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan[(2001) 8 SCC   574]'.”

11. Considering the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the  writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, in view of the  fact that since 2014, no regular appointment to the post of Managing  Director, JHASCOLAMP has been made, the Respondent­Secretary,  Department   of  Agriculture, Animal  Husbandary  and  Co­operative,  Government of Jharkhand is directed to initiate and conclude the  exercise for regular appointment to the post of Managing Director,  JHASCOLAMP, within 3 months.  (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J)   jk          


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //