A P S R T C & Ors. Vs. V. Veeraiah
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2267 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) 11217/97)
Petitioner: A P S R T C & Ors.
Respondent: V. Veeraiah
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2267 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) 11217/97)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 16, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 14 – Seniority – Transfer of employee on his own request – Transfer subject to seniority to be reckoned as mentioned therein – High Court holding that transfer was due to exigency and creation of new division – Application of transfer mentioning personal prob-lems. Held High Court was not justified in holding that transfer was due to exigency and seniority should not be affected to his disadvantage. Appeal allowed.(Paras 3, 4)
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 14 – Seniority – Transfer of employee on his own request – Transfer subject to seniority to be reckoned as mentioned therein – High Court holding that transfer was due to exigency and creation of new division – Application of transfer mentioning personal prob-lems. Held High Court was not justified in holding that transfer was due to exigency and seniority should not be affected to his disadvantage. Appeal allowed.(Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent is working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Appellants. He came to be transferred pursuant to an order made by the Corporation on 18.7.80. In that order it is noted that the respondent was transferred on his request and his seniority would be reckoned in the manner stated therein. Howev-er, he questioned the action of the Appellants in so far as it related to his seniority before the High Court in a writ peti-tion. The High Court stated that the transfer had been effected on account of administrative exigencies and creation of a new division and, therefore, his seniority should not be affected to his disadvantage. The order made by the learned Single Judge was taken up in appeal which came to be dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants drew our attention to the order made by the Corporation on 18.7.80 which was pursuant to the application made by the respondent as Annexure ‘B’ which clearly indicates that he had certain personal problems and, therefore, opted for a transfer. On those grounds, the order has been made by the Corporation taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the circumstances we do not think the High Court is justified in holding that the transfer is on account of adminis-trative exigencies or by creation of a new division. We are of the view that the order made by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, needs to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent is working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Appellants. He came to be transferred pursuant to an order made by the Corporation on 18.7.80. In that order it is noted that the respondent was transferred on his request and his seniority would be reckoned in the manner stated therein. Howev-er, he questioned the action of the Appellants in so far as it related to his seniority before the High Court in a writ peti-tion. The High Court stated that the transfer had been effected on account of administrative exigencies and creation of a new division and, therefore, his seniority should not be affected to his disadvantage. The order made by the learned Single Judge was taken up in appeal which came to be dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants drew our attention to the order made by the Corporation on 18.7.80 which was pursuant to the application made by the respondent as Annexure ‘B’ which clearly indicates that he had certain personal problems and, therefore, opted for a transfer. On those grounds, the order has been made by the Corporation taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the circumstances we do not think the High Court is justified in holding that the transfer is on account of adminis-trative exigencies or by creation of a new division. We are of the view that the order made by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, needs to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
