2014 (2) TMI 139 - HC - Indian Laws

Transfer from one department to another - Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - Held that - The maximum period specified in the transfer order was only for five years. Learned Single Judge also noticed that the appellants herein had maintained their lien in their parent Department and their service conditions were still governed and controlled by the parent Department. Besides, by passing the impugned order, they were simply repatriated to their parent Department and in no manner their service lien with the Irrigation Department stood terminated. Learned Single Judge also noticed that there was no violation of any provision of the Act, the rule, the regulation or any government order governing their service conditions. The orders so passed also did not cast any stigma on the appellants. The orders were neither whimsical nor arbitrary, nor were they based on extraneous consideration - Following decision of Paritosh Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (12) TMI 1082 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - Decided against Appellants.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to repatriation orders of appellants from Trade Tax Department to parent Department.
2. Allegation of orders being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Claim of shortage of officers in Trade Tax Department.
4. Argument against repatriation affecting studies of appellants' children.
5. Examination of the transfer of service not being on a permanent basis.
6. Analysis of service conditions and maintenance of lien in the parent Department.
7. Evaluation of the absence of violation of any provision governing service conditions.
8. Determination of orders not being whimsical, arbitrary, or based on extraneous considerations.

Comprehensive Analysis:
1. The special appeals were filed against a common judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions challenging the repatriation orders of the appellants from the Trade Tax Department to their parent Department, the Irrigation Department. The orders were issued following a decision by the State Government on 23.08.2005, affecting the appellants who were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department. The repatriation was contested on the grounds of lacking government order, being arbitrary, and against public interest due to a shortage of officers in the Trade Tax Department.

2. The orders of repatriation were also challenged for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The argument was made that the repatriation would lead to termination of service from the Irrigation Department, affecting the appellants' career. Additionally, it was contended that the orders disrupted the studies of appellants' children, further emphasizing the adverse impact of the decision.

3. The learned Single Judge scrutinized the transfer of service and concluded that it was not on a permanent basis, with the maximum specified period being five years. It was noted that the appellants maintained their lien in the parent Department, and their service conditions remained governed by the Irrigation Department. The repatriation did not terminate their service lien with the Irrigation Department, and there was no violation of any governing provisions in their service conditions.

4. The orders were found to be non-stigmatic, not whimsical, arbitrary, or based on extraneous considerations. A similar matter concerning officers transferred from the Public Works Department was cited, where the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgments, upholding the validity of the reasons provided. Therefore, all the special appeals were dismissed based on the detailed analysis and findings of the Court.