The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) has held that a transfer order passed on grounds of administrative exigency, particularly to meet the specific need for an employee’s specialized skills at a different location, does not warrant judicial interference. The fact that an employee is on a contractual basis does not provide immunity from such a transfer, especially when the employer has made a significant investment in the employee’s training for a specific operational requirement.
The Court pointed out that an allegation of malafide against a transfer must be supported by concrete material and is weakened if the circumstances, such as the simultaneous transfer of the official against whom a complaint was made, suggest otherwise. Hence, the petition was dismissed as the Court found no grounds to interfere with the transfer order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti observed that the respondents’ return made it abundantly clear that the petitioner’s services were required at the place of transfer due to a dearth of concerned staff and the dire need for his specialized skills. It was undisputed that the petitioner had undergone a special training at the National Power Training Institute, Bangalore, for which the company had incurred significant expense.
The Bench took particular note of Clause 9 of the training deputation order, which required participants to execute a service agreement-cum-surety bond to serve the company for a minimum period of five years, acknowledging the financial investment made by the company. The Bench thus found that the transfer was in line with this understanding, as the petitioner was being moved to a location where his specialized services were specifically required.
Further, the Bench dismissed the petitioner’s allegation of malafide exercise of power. It found the argument to be unsubstantiated, especially since the Assistant Engineer against whom the petitioner had complained had also been transferred simultaneously.
Briefly, the petitioner, working as a Line Attendant on a contractual basis, filed a petition challenging an order, whereby, he was transferred from T.L.M. Sub Division Damoh to T.L.M. Sub Division Badwah, a location approximately 500 Kms away. The petitioner contended that this transfer was malafide and punitive, issued as a ‘counter blast’ because he had filed a complaint against an Assistant Engineer. He further argued that as a contractual employee, he should not be subjected to such a distant transfer, especially since he had already been transferred to his current posting only about eight months prior.
The respondents countered that the transfer was passed purely on grounds of administrative exigency. They submitted that the petitioner was one of five employees who had undergone a specialized and expensive 11-week training program on ‘Live Line Maintenance Technique (LLMT)’ using the Hot Stick Method, at a cost of approximately Rs. 3,00,000 per employee. The respondents stated that a minimum crew of six specially trained persons is required to carry out this maintenance work.
While the petitioner’s current posting at Damoh already had eight such trained individuals, the proposed place of transfer, Badwah, had only five, creating an acute need for the petitioner’s skills there. To rebut the allegation of malafide, the respondents pointed out that the Assistant Engineer against whom the petitioner had complained was also transferred on the same date.
Appearances:
Advocate Dharmendra Patel, for the Petitioner
Advocate Utkarsh Agrawal, for the Respondents
