Sarat Kumar Chhotaray Vs Zonal Manager, LIC of India, East Central Zone, Patna

Instant writ p e tition is filed by the petitioner challenging t he order of transfer date d 24^th May, 2024 i.e. Annexure-7 and to allow him to continue at B h ubaneswar on the grounds stated therein

¶14

Learned cou n sel for the petitioner submits that the p etitioner moved the Aut h ority concerned with a representation(Ann e xure-6), which was disp o sed of by a cryptic order as at Annexur e -7. It is further submitte d that the petitioner is aged about 57 years and is to retire in 2027, hence, without a tenure of three y ears at Bhubaneswar, h e should not have been transferred to Berh a mpur in view of the Tra n sfer and Mobility Policy for Class-I Officer s , a copy of which is at A n nexure-5. In course of hearing, learned co u nsel for the petitioner re f ers to Clause 5(d) of the said policy to con t end that the normal peri o d of posting should be three years, where a s, in the case of the petitioner, the transfer has been ordered before the said

¶15

P a ge 1 of 3

¶16

period, inasmu c h as, he is posted as Administrative Officer, LIC, Bhubaneswar, K h ordha since last two years.

¶17

The relevant c lause referred to herein above is reproduce d below:

¶18

“5(d). Normal Period of Posting : Continuous positin g of officers in the cadre of ADM and above in SAM E POSITION for a period of 3 years and in SAME S TATION for a period of 6 years (For Metros it is 10 years)& continuous positing of officers in the cadre of AAO/AO in SAME POSITI O N for a period of 3 years and in SAME STATION for a period of 8 years (For Metros it is 10 year s ) after which an officer becomes due for Redepl o yment/ Transfer. Period spent on Deputa t ion in the same station shall also be taken for co m puting NPP.”

¶19

Referring to the said policy of LIC, it is claimed by the p etitioner that he should h ave been allowed to remain at the present place of positing at least for a period of 3 years and that too whe n is aged about 57 years a nd to retire in 2027. Clause 6 and Clause 11 of the said policy hav e also been cited to the Court to claim t hat such transfer of the p e titioner before expiry of the period is not j u stified.

¶20

Since there is a representation submitted earlier and it h as been disposed of vid e Annexure-7 and the Court finds that the s ame is a cryptic one wit h out assigning any reason therefor, it is of t he view that such griev a nce is to be re-examined by opposite pa r ty No.3 keeping view of the Transfer and Mobility Policy vis-à-vis Class-I P a ge 2 of 3

¶21

Officers. In oth e r words, the Court is of the conclusion th a t before any such transf e r of the petitioner, the decision of opposite party No.3 should ap p ear to be consistent with the transfer polic y .

¶22

Hence, it is o r dered.

¶23

In the result, t he writ petition stands disposed of with a d irection to opposite par t y No.3 to once again consider Annexure-6 which is restored to file and to take a decision on the transfe r of the petitioner vide A nnexure-4 in the light of the Transfer and Mobility Policy in respect of Class-I Officers at the earliest preferably within a period of ten d a ys from today and till such time, such an order of transfer with re s pect to him shall be kept in abeyance. It i s further directed that if necessary, there shall be a personal heari n g of the petitioner by o pposite party No.3 on the representa t ion i.e. Annexure-6.