THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18419 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Deputy General Manager (Personnel and Administration) in Goa Ship Yard. The Dredging Corporation of India Limited, the 1st respondent herein, issued notification, inviting applications for the post of General Manager (Human Resources). The petitioner was selected for that post and he joined the 1st respondent on 08-02-2005. At present, he is working in the office at Visakhapatnam. Through office order dated 23-07-2010, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein, transferred the petitioner to Madras Nuclear Object (MNO), Chennai, as Officer on Special Duty. The petitioner made a representation on the same day to the respondents, stating that, recently he suffered a heart attack; his left over service is only one year, and that there is no post of General Manager at MNO, Chennai. He pleaded that there is no work connected with Human Resources, at Chennai, and made request to retain him at Visakhapatnam. On the same day, the 2nd respondent issued a reply, stating that the nature of duties to be discharged by the petitioner at Chennai would be intimated separately, and that his health condition was taken into consideration, while transferring him. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of transfer. The petitioner contends that, as part of his duty, he processed the application of one, Mr.Krishna Rao, for the post of Manager in the Corporation, and when the selection committee did not choose that candidate, the 2nd respondent got him appointed. He contends that, ever since then, the latter had a grudge against him. He submits that the transfer is mala fide in nature and none of the points raised by him in the representation dated 23-07-2010 were taken into account. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. According to them, transfer is an incidence of service, and the petitioner was transferred to MNO, Chennai, due to exigencies of the Organisation. They contend that the processing of the application by the petitioner has no bearing on the order of transfer, and the petitioner is under obligation to serve at any station, on being posted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the left over service of the petitioner is hardly one year, and in the recent past, the petitioner suffered serious heart ailment. He contends that the respondents themselves are not clear as to the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner at MNO, Chennai, and that no person was posted in the place of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the only objective of transferring the petitioner was to ensure that he does not function at Visakhapatnam. Learned Advocate-General appeared for the respondents. He contends that the order of transfer was issued purely on administrative grounds and there existed a necessity for posting an experienced Officer, like the petitioner, at MNO, Chennai. He submits that the petitioner would not be put to any hardship or inconvenience on account of the transfer. He places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in D.K. MOHAN v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA[1] This Court is conscious of the fact that the scope of interference with the orders of transfer by this Court is very limited. It is only when any specific guidelines framed by the concerned Organisation are violated, that there would exist some scope for interference. The petitioner was appointed by the 2nd respondent as General Manager in the year 2005 on the Human Resources side. It is the prerogative of any employer to transfer its employees to any other suitable place/post. In case the petitioner is transferred as General Manager (HR), to another unit of the 1st respondent, there should not have been any plausible objection. The order of transfer dated 23-07-2010 reads as under: “Due to administrative reasons, Shri A. Bose, General Manager (HR), B.No.888, is hereby transferred to MNO, Chennai, on regular transfer basis, with immediate effect, and he shall hand over the charge and the records in his custody including confidential files, to Shri T. Prasada Rao, DGM(HR), on 23-07-2010. Shri Bose stands relieved on 23-7-2010 AN. 2. Shri Bose shall function as Officer on Special Duty at MNO, Chennai, and his duties/works will be communicated separately. 3. Shri Bose is entitled to draw TA/DA for himself and his family members, transfer grant, transportation of personal effects, etc., as per relevant rules”. The petitioner, who is now working as General Manager (HR), is transferred as Officer on Special Duty. The specialization of the petitioner is on the Human Resources Wing. In his representation, dated 23-07-2010, the petitioner specifically pleaded that there is no work related to Human Resources Wing at MNO, Chennai, and the functions thereat are mostly connected with export and import, in which he has no experience. Two other factors pleaded by him were that, his left over service is hardly one year, and that he suffered heart attack. The reply given by the 2nd respondent reads as under: “This has reference to your letter dt. 23.7.2010 requesting to reconsider and cancel the transfer order. This is to inform that the transfer order holds good. Your duties at MNO, Chennai, shall be intimated to you separately. While posting at Chennai, your health condition has been taken into consideration”. Three aspects assume significance in this regard: The first is that the 2nd respondent was not even aware as to the nature of duties, that are supposed to be discharged by the petitioner at Chennai. The plea raised by the petitioner, that there is no Human Resources related work at that place; remains unrebutted. From the reply given by the respondents, it is not clear as to what duties they wanted the petitioner to discharge, at Chennai. Another facet of this very aspect is that no person was posted in the place of the petitioner at Visakhapatnam. The effort therefore appears to be more to shift the petitioner, than to adjust the working pattern in different units of the same organization. The second is that the left over service of the petitioner is about one year. It is the common practice in every organization that an employee is permitted to work at a place of his choice in the final phase of his service, which would be two years, in some cases, and one year, in others. Even in Para Military Forces, such facility is extended to the members thereof. Though it cannot be said that an employee has a right to choose the places of his choice, before retirement, the employer is under obligation to assign cogent reasons for deviating from such norms. The reply given to the representation made by the petitioner, as well as the counter-affidavit are silent as to the special reasons, that warrant shifting of the petitioner, just before his retirement. The third is that the petitioner had suffered heard ailment, in the recent past. He filed certain documents in proof thereof. The respondents have not denied this. It would certainly be difficult for the petitioner to adjust at the new place, even assuming that such facilities are also available there also. There does not appear any valid reason to compel the petitioner to work at a different place, and to discharge the duties in the field, which is not the specialization of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the transfer is not at all on account of any administrative exigency, and it appears to be designed, only to shift the petitioner from Visakhapatnam. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefits or facilities, which other employees in the same organization, and employees in other organizations, viz., retention at the same place, immediately before retirement. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-10-2010. KO [1] 2010 (3) ALT 749 (D.B.)