Judgment:
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) No. 4449/2011 & CM Nos. 9069/2011, 8880/2012, 5300/2012 8th March, 2013 % HARISH KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Advocate. versus THE HMT LIMITED & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. C.V. Francis, Mr. Arun Francis, Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is the employee of the respondent No.2/HMT Watches Limited. Petitioner is presently working at the post of Assistant General Manager. The petitioner claims two reliefs by way of this writ petition. First is challenging his order of transfer from Delhi to Jaipur. Second relief prayed for is to direct the respondent No. 2 to consider his application for voluntary retirement under the scheme dated 02.09.2010.
2. So far as the second aspect of grant of VRS is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has denied that there is any VRS scheme as applicable on date with respect to the post of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent also argues that the petitioner will only be entitled to seek VRS on or after June 2013. Accordingly, qua the relief of VRS, the petition is disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner is qualified under an extant VRS scheme, he can apply for VRS and the respondent No. 2 will consider his application in accordance with the rules and policies of the respondent No.
2. 3. So far as relief with respect to challenging the order of transfer is concerned, the law is well-settled, that the transfer is an incident of service and Courts do not interfere with the orders of transfer unless the same are against the rules of the organization or are grossly and quite clearly malicious. In the present case, the petitioner has been transferred from Delhi to Jaipur inasmuch as there was a need for senior officer of the post which the petitioner is occupying at Jaipur. This is so stated in para 3 of the reply of the respondent No. 2 and which reads as under :
3. The petitioner is challenging his transfer in the petition. He himself came on a transfer to Delhi Office of the respondent from Rani Bagh office in July 2007. Transfer is an incident of service conditions. As per terms of appointment, he is liable to be transferred anywhere in India or abroad. His present transfer is necessitated with exigency of service. The respondent company in order to improve its marketing activities in North India has reinforced the regional office by transferring an experienced marketing executive from Koltata to New Delhi. The Jaiput show room is being manned by a junior level officer presently. The petitioner was transferred to Jaipur to improve marketing at Jaipur. It is respectfully submitted that there is no mala fide intention or ulterior motive in the transfer of the petitioner to Jaipur. It is in the best interest of the respondent on commercial viability. The petitioner cannot make a grievance of his transfer in the exigency of running the organization. The petitioner had been relieved from his office duties at New Delhi on 27.06.2011 after the end of the shift to report at Jaipur. (underlining added).
4. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner has no legal entitlement to challenge his transfer order. The petitioner has been transferred because of administrative exigencies as stated in the counter affidavit. Merely, because there are some personal difficulties as alleged by the petitioner with respect to studies of his children cannot mean that petitioner can seek stay of the order of transfer inasmuch as every employee has some or other personal issues including the education for children, however, Courts have not accepted such reasons for staying of orders of transfer. In any case, the writ petition was filed in the year 2011 and we are in the year 2013, and thus even the pleaded ground would not survive.
5. The final aspect which was urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the petitioner is not being paid salary since April 2012. To this respondent No. 2 has stated on affidavit that respondent No. 2-company is incurring huge losses and, therefore, it is making some payment every month to the employees and thereafter is releasing balance amount in due course within a few months i.e when the funds are available. In this regard the respondent no. 2 in its counter affidavit has averred as under :
5. The comparison of the petitioner that a Senior Executive HMT Watches Limited is getting the salary less than the class IV employee of the Central Government is unwarranted and absolutely false. The monthly salary of the petitioner is around ` 32,000/-. The petitioner has himself admitted that he had received his full salary up to September 2010. It is an admitted fact that the salary upto the month of September 2010 has been cleared. On account of some financial problems, the Respondent has not been able to release full salary to its employees every month end. But it has been releasing part payment ranging from `7800 to 3500 every month, and the balance salary is paid to employees in subsequent months depending upon the availability of funds with the respondent. The Respondent therefore has cleared the arrears of all the employees till September 2010.
6. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 has made a statement to this Court that as and when petitioner will join the posting at Jaipur, and which posting the petitioner did not join in view of the stay order passed by this Court, at that stage of joining at Jaipur the petitioner will be released arrears of his salary, and will be treated on the same footing as the other employees of the respondent No. 2 who are similarly situated as the petitioner. This statement made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 through its counsel is taken on record and the same will bind the respondent No.
2. 7. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed with respect to both the reliefs of the challenge to the order of transfer and of the petitioner claiming entitlement to VRS, of course, subject to observations and directions given in the present judgment. All pending application also stand disposed of accordingly. VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J MARCH 08 2013 godara