Judgment:
Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 3/03/1993passed by the Personnel Division of the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi respondent herein approving the transfers certain officers. Petitioners 1 and 2 Bhagwan Singh Talwar and Guru Prasad are working as Deputy Managers with the Corporation. PetitionerNo. 3 is the M.M.T.C. Delhi Regional Officers Association and petitionerNo. 4 is the Federation of M.M.T.C. Officers Association.
(2) Pursuant to an agreement between the Corporation and its employees, Staff Promotion Policy namely; The Mmtc (Staff) Promotion Policy 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Policy) was created. The1984 Policy has two staff categories; (i) Local Cadre and (ii) all-India Cadre.The members of the staff under the said Policy were required to exercise their option for one of the two cadres. It was agreed that those who opted for the Local Cadre will not be transferred from the station of their choice however in return they would have to give up the chance of accelerated promotion and would not be entitled to promotion beyond particular ceilingi.e. E-l level. When a member of the staff who opted for Local/Cadre was promoted to the officer level he would have the opportunity to exercise the option once again. He could at that stage change over to-all India Cadre.The Mmtc officers are categorised as follows :E-l Assistant Divisional Manager or equivalentE-2 Deputy Divisional Manager or equivalentE-3 Joint Divisional Manager or equivalentE-4 Divisional Manager or equivalentE-5 General Manager or equivalentE-6 Senior General Manager or equivalent.Thus, all the members of the staff who had opted for Local/Cadre were allowed promotion only up to the level of Assistant Divisional Manager or equivalent whereas those who opted for all-India Cadre, their promotion level would go up to E-6 i.e. Senior General Manager or equivalent. Clause 4.4 of1984 Policy reads as under :'4.4. Under the time bound promotion policy for managers,there will be two cadres ; namely, (i) a Load Cadre where a manager will not be transferred from the station of his choice and (ii) an all-India Cadre where the tenure and place of posting of a manager would be at the option of the management and the managers will have all-India transfer liability. At the time of entering the managerial cadre, i.e. when becoming an Adm or equivalent, an employee shall have to exercise option to be either in the Local Cadre or in the all-India Cadre. In case he opts for Local Cadre, he can expect promotion only up to the level of DDM/DAM and equivalent. Option once exercised shall be final and binding and no change will be allowed subsequently.'
(3) On 6.2.1985 a separate Promotion Policy namely MMTC(Officers) Promotion and Transfer Policy 1985 was formulated for employees of the Corporation who bad reached the officers level. Even as per this Policy two cadres were envisaged. Clause 4.1 of the said Policy reads asunder:-'4.1. For the purpose of promotion/transfer there will be two cadres of managers, namely, (1) Local Cadre and (2) all-IndiaCadre. Managers in 'Local Cadre' shall not be transferred from the Region of their choice (viz., Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras.Vizag, Goa, Cuttack, Nalda and Bellary); Postings & Transfers of managers in 'all-India Cadre' shall be at the option of the Management. The seniority of incumbents of these cadres will be determined separately.'Again under the said Policy-managers who opted for Local Cadre could be promoted only up to the level of E-2 i.e. Deputy Divisional Manager or equivalent whereas there was no such limit for the managers who opted for all India Cadre. The managers who opted for all India Cadre could be transferred to any of the offices of the Corporation in India and abroad with the prospects of accelerated growth opportunity as compared to the 'Local Cadre'. Clause 4.5 of the said Policy reads as under :-'4.5. The promotees from the staff cadres will be required to give their option for 'Local Cadre' or 'all-India Cadre' within one month of joining as ADM/AAM failing which the manager would be deemed to have opted for the 'Local Cadre.'
(4) Petitioners 1 and 2 opted for the Local Cadre before they were promoted as Deputy Managers in the officers grade. Even in the officers grade they exercised their option for Local Cadre.
(5) It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since petitioners 1 and 2 had opted for Local Cadre they could not be transferred outside the station and thus the impugned order dated 3.3.1993 transferring them though in the same region cannot sustained. It was submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 and similarly placed persons who had opted for the Local Cadre bad sacrificed promotions to higher posts beyond a particular level because they did not wish to be transferred outside their station.Once the respondents had agreed to this Transfer Policy they were estopped from transferring them outside the station. Even if the respondents had decided to change the Policy the same could not be done without complying with the rules of natural justice. Learned Counsel relied on a circular dated28.2.85 in support of his contention that it was specifically agreed that the persons who opted for Local Cadre will remain in the station of their posting and will not be transferred to sub regional offices under the jurisdiction of regional office. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondents have not only framed the policy as per the agreement but have also acted upon it and not effected transfers of persons who had opted for the Local Cadre tillnow. It was submitted that some transfer orders were issued in the year1992, however due to objections raised by persons in the Local Cadre, the orders of transfer were withdrawn.
(6) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 could not in ony event take advantage of the circular dated 28.2.1985since both of them were transferred after the 1985 promotion policy wasframed. Learned Counsel submitted that the circular was issued by the Joint Divisional Manager of the Administration Division and it was not issued by the Head Office. This was only a clarificatory circular issued before the policy was formulated. Once the policy was spelt out, the circular ceased to have any effect. It was submitted that the 1985 Policy was modified on 29/03/1985. Learned Counsel relied on latter dated 23.2.1985,office order dated 27.4.1985, Officers Association's letter dated 3.6.1985 and circular dated 4.6.85 in support of his contention that it was always agreed between the Officers Associations and the respondents that the officers who opted for the Local Cadre could be transferred but within the region. There was no commitment made not to transfer them outside their station. Learned Counsel further submitted that consequent upon the liberalisation of policy of import and export the work in the respondents-Corporation has undergone a change. Since there is an endeavor to diversify and expandthe business and trading activities it has become necessary that the employees in the Local Cadre are also involved in the activities of the regional officeconcerned. Petitioners 1 and 2 and similarly placed persons were covered by the 1985 Policy which envisaged transfer for managers in the Local Cadre within the region. They are not governed by the 1984 Policy. Thus,the impugned order transferring them within the region was perfectlyvalid.
(7) The short question, thereforee, for our consideration is whether the officers who had opted for Local Cadre could be transferred within the irregion and outside their station. Undoubtedly, the persons who had joined the respondents as members of the staff would be governed by the 1984policy so long as they were not promoted as officers. As soon as a member of the staff was promoted as an officer he would be governed by the 1985Policy. The 1985 policy dealt with promotions and transfers from E-1 toE-6 level. As per this policy, the managers who opted for the Local Cadre could be promoted only up to the level of E-2. It appears that there was some misunderstanding regarding transferability of these officers outside their station and within the region. Certain specific clarifications were asked and on 22.2.1985 Shri O.P. Garg, the then General Manager of the respondents issued a D.O. letter which reads thus :'My dear Ahuja,Kindly refer to your letter No. MMTC/DR08 (26)/85dated 11/02/1985 forwarding therewith a letter dated 14thFeb., from Shri Manga Ram, Aam, regarding Mmtc Officers Promotion & Transfer Policy 1985.2. The presumption of Shri Manga Ram that an officer who opts for Local Cadre will not be transferred to any SROs under the jurisdiction of Regional Office is confirmed.With regards,Yours sincerely, Sd/.(O.P. Garg)Shri A.K.. Ahuja,General Manager,MMTC of India Ltd.,Delhi Regional Office,New Delhi.'On this letter a noting is made for issuing a circular clarifying theposition.
(8) Consequently, on 28.2.1985 a circular was issued by the Administration Division (Personnel Section) through Shri T.E. Varadan, Joint Divisional Manager which reads thus :'CIRCULARS nb : Mmtc (Officers) Promotion & Transfer Policy, 1985 The Mmtc (Officers) Promotion & Transfer Policy was circulated and it was advised that those who want to opt for the local/all-India cadre should submit their option to the Personnel Section latest by 10/03/1985.2. Meanwhile, a representation was received from one of the officers seeking clarification whether the officers who opt for Local Cadre will remain in their place of choice and will not be transferred to SROs under the jurisdiction of Regional Office.HO has new confirmed that the persons who opt for local cadre will remain at the station of their posting and will not be transferred to SROs, under the jurisdiction of the Regional Office.3. All the officers who are to give their option may kindly send the same immediately and in any case, not later than 10/03/1985 so that Ho could be apprised accordingly.Sd/-(T.E. Varadan)Jt. Divisional Manager (P)'This circular was put up on various notice boards so that adequate clarification was available to all the persons who had opted for the Local Cadre.In fact the circular gave one more opportunity to the officers who had not given their option to exercise their option latest by 10.3.1985.
(9) We find that the reliance placed by the respondents on the letter of 22.3.1985 to suggest that the Local Cadre officers could be transferred within the region is without any basis. The letter of 22.3.1985 only talks about the level to which the officer who has opted for the Local Cadre could be promoted. A proposal was made that the officers who had opted for theLocal Cadre could be promoted up to the level of Joint Divisional Manager provided that they agree to transfer within the region. However, this offer was not accepted by the Officers Association and thereafter the 1985 Policy provides for promotion of Local Cadre officers only up to E-2 level i.e., up to the level of deputy Divisional Manager. This position is confirmed by office order of 27.4.1985 which specifically stated that the Local Cadre will be up to DDM and equivalent. This office order washes out the offer contained inD.O. letter date 22.3.1985. Moreover, the office order No. 1/85/IR by which MMTC (Officers) Promotion & Transfer Policy 1985 was annexed is dated6.2.1985 though the Policy had to come into force with effect from 1.4.1985.Thus, the circular of 28.2.1985 was issued subsequent to the declaration of the Policy. The other documents on which the respondents rely are letter dated 23.2.1985, letter dated 3.6.1985 and circular dated 4.6.1985. None of these documents refer to any agreement between the respondents and the Officers Association regarding transfer of Local Cadre officers outside their station. After the circular was issued on 28.2.1985 the discussion was only regarding level of promotion. It had nothing to do with transfer out of station.
(10) We do not see any merit in the submission made by the respondents that the circular was issued only by the Personnel Division and,therefore, was not binding on the respondents because it was only a regionaldecision. The circular was issued after confirmation by the head office and copies were marked to various offices throughout the country. In fact, it is not open to the respondents to raise such an objection because even otherwise Delhi Regional Office and Corporate Office are in the same building.It appears that the persons who opted for the Local Cadre were given to understand that they will not be transferred from the station of their choice.The officers arranged their own affairs on that basis and in the process sacrificed further promotional avenues. Those who opted for the Local Cadre after being promoted to the managerial cadre would only get one more promotion during the rest of their service i.e. up to E-2 level whereas those who opted for all-India cadre got promotion every four years. Thus,an officer who opted for the Local Cadre stagnated in one position and even the officers who were junior to him but opted for all-India Cadre would supersede him.
(11) The fact that the management also understood the 1985 Policy to mean that the Local Cadre officers will not be transferred outside their station is clear from the fact that ever since 1985 Policy was framed no officer who had opted for the Local Cadre was transferred outside the station of his choice. Learned Counsel for the Corporation did try to show one or two instances of Local Cadre persons who were transferred outside the station but these are only stray instances. By and large the Corporation has honoured the agreement and not transferred Local Cadre officers outside the station. In fact the office order dt, 1.6.1991 placed on record shows that in1991 when transfers were ordered. Local Cadre persons were not transferred out of station while All India Cadre officers were transferred not only outsidethe station but also outside the region.
(12) There was no specific denial of the allegation that some transfers were ordered in the year 1992, however on an agitation made by the OfficersAssociation, the transfer orders were withdrawn.
(13) Undoubtedly, the Local Cadre officers having sacrificed their promotions and future prospects on an assurance that they will not be transferred outside their station cannot be made to suffer by transferring them against the agreed policy. If the respondents require to change the policy because of certain change in business conditions it is necessary that they discuss the matter with the Officers Association before and decision in that regard is taken. Change of policy regarding which was arrived at by way of settlement cannot be unilaterally changed by the Corporation.
(14) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had a lot to say about voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the respondents in order to lure the persons in the Local Cadre to opt for early retirement. We are not inclined to go into that question in these proceedings since we are informed that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme has since been withdrawn.
(15) We are of the view that the transfer policy applicable in case of officers as formulated in 1985 read with the clarificatory circular dated28.2.1985 made it abundantly clear that the officers who opted for the Local Cadre could not be transferred outside their station. In the circumstances we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order dated 3.3.1993.
(16) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated3.3.1993 is set aside. There will be however no order as to costs.Petition allowed