Dismissed

Tirendra Prasad Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 Jul 2024WP.CT/90/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's order refusing to interfere with a railway servant's transfer from Junior Engineer to In-charge SSE at the same station. The Court held the Tribunal correctly discounted claims of demotion as posts were at the same level, noting transfer is necessary in public interest.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Tirendra Prasad Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

02 18.07.2024 Ct. No. 11 Jayanta

¶2

WP.CT 90 of 2024

¶3

Tirendra Prasad Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Tirendra Prasad Yadav (In-person)

¶5

….For the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Kumaresh Dalal Ms. Ranjana Chatterjee

¶7

….For the Respondents.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 13^th December, 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (hereinafter referred to OA), being OA 1398 of 2022 and the connected applications being MA 742 of 2022 and CP 140 of 2023. By the said order the learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the transfer order dated 20^th July, 2022 by which the petitioner was transferred from the post of Junior Engineer (P.Way) to the post of In-charge SSE (P.Way) at the same station and the order dated 25^th July, 2022 by which the petitioner was directed to handover charge to the private respondent.

¶9

Mr. Yadav, the petitioner appearing in-person submits that the transfer order was issued by an incompetent authority and the same was also not placed before the Placement Committee for its

¶10

¶11

recommendation. The transfer order was an order of demotion and by the same the petitioner had been penalized.

¶12

Drawing our attention to pages 88 to 90 of the OA, he submits that initially an interim order was passed on 5^th August, 2022 and the same was extended by an order dated 17^th August, 2022. As the respondents did not comply with the said order, the petitioner was also constrained to file a competent application being CP 140 of 2023 and prior thereto, a vacating application was filed by the respondents being MA 742 of 2022.

¶13

Mr. Yadav contends that the impugned order of transfer was issued not in public interest but for collateral purpose with oblique motive. The said order was also not passed following the transfer policy. Such arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

¶14

Per contra , Mr. Dalal, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been transferred from one post to another in the same station and was also placed in the same scale of pay. In view thereof, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

¶15

¶16

Drawing our attention to the transfer order, he argues that the same was issued on the recommendation of the Placement Committee and was also approved by the competent authority. In support of such contention he has drawn our attention to the circulars dated 10^th June, 2014 and 21^st September, 2015.

¶17

We have heard the petitioner, appearing inperson and Mr. Dalal, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents and considered the materials on record.

¶18

The argument of Mr. Yadav that the order of transfer was an order of demotion was rightly discounted by the learned Tribunal since the post from which the petitioner was transferred and the post in which he was transferred carried the same scale of pay and were at the same level (Level-6). Furthermore, the petitioner was transferred at the same station and as such the learned Tribunal rightly observed that no inconvenience had been caused to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the fact that the Railway Board’s circular dated 10^th June, 2014 had been modified by a subsequent circular dated 21^st September, 2015, the learned Tribunal rightly arrived at a finding that the transfer order had been issued by the competent authority.

¶19

¶20

Transfer is an incident of service and is necessary in public interest. A railway servant has no legal right to continue in a particular post indefinitely.

¶21

Applying such proposition of law to the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the present writ petition as the same does not suffer from any patent error of law. The writ petition being WP.CT 90 of 2024 is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶22

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶23

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶24

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Tirendra Prasad Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirendra Prasad Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mousumi Bag Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rama Mallick Bera Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dr. Enamul Hoque Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Aloke Choudhury and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Tapan Kumar Dowari

Samapti Chanda and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.