Partly allowed

Abdulrab.I.Soudagar v. Union of India

Orissa HC23 Jun 2016WP(C)/10602/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed for quashing an order of transfer against a CISF employee and seeking reimbursement of medical bills. The court held that transfer is an incident of service and refused interference absent mala fides, but directed the employer to consider reimbursement claims.

What did the court decide?

Order of transfer not interfered with; opposite party directed to consider medical bills and pay if entitled.

23.06.2016 This petition challenges the order of transfer dated 14.6.2016 passed by the D y. Commandant/ADM, For Sr. Commandant, CISF Unit, NALCO Damanjodi, opposite party no.5 vide An nexure-19 transferring the petitioner to BLSM, Bhawanathpur, Jharkhand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer has been issued as a measure of punishment. Children of the petitioner are reading in Kendriya Vidyala ya. The petitioner has not completed his tenure in the NALCO Damanjodi. Other similarly circum stanced persons are continuing in the NALCO Damanjodi whereas he has been transferred. Further more, his wife is ailing. He submits that the order of transfer may be quashed.

Scope of interference in the order of transfer is well-known. In Abani Kanta R ay vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169, the Supreme Court held that a tran sfer which is an incident of service is not to be interefered with by the courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer.

On the anvil of the decision cited supra, the case of the petitioner may be ex amined. The petitioner is transferred on the administrative ground. Transfer is an incident of service. In the absence of any mala fide exercise of power, this Court is not inclined to int erfere with the order of transfer.

With regard to the medical bills, the opposite party no.5 is directed to consi der the same in accordance with the rules. In the event, the opposite party no.5 comes to a co nclusion that the petitioner is entitled for any reimbursement of the medical bills, the same shall be paid within a period of two months thereafter.

Abdulrab.I.Soudagar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulrab.I.Soudagar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundar Vs Collector

State of Orissa Vs Narayan Sa

Bichitrananda Senapati Vs State of Odisha

Rita Pattnaik Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Trimurti Industr Vs M/S.Kalico Engg.P.L

Sanatan Pradhan Vs Purna Pradhan andORS.