WP(C) 4750/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE AMITAVA ROY The challenge is laid against the office order dated 20/8/2007 b y the Manager (HP and ES), Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., Nagaon Paper Mill, Kagajnagar, (hereafter referred to as the Corporation) transferring the petition er from Central Stores in the Commercial (Stores) Department to the Converting S ection as Operator Grade I. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Deka, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 3. The abridged version of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Technician Trainee (Welder) by the Corporation w.e.f. 21/3/1984. By then he h ad obtained a National Trade Certificate at the Industrial Training Institute, N agaon, in the trade of Welder in July 1977. After a one-year stint of training a t the Corporation, his services were regularized as Welder (Trainee) in the Clas s IV of its services w.e.f. 20/3/1985. His services were thereafter confirmed w. e.f. 20/3/1986 on satisfactory completion of probation. He was promoted thereaft er in the same grade and he eventually rose to the rank of Technician Grade-I w. e.f. 1/10/2005. Till 7/10/2002, the petitioner has been continuing in the Mechan ical Division as a Welder. By order dated 7/10/2002, however, he was transferred to the Commercial (Stores) w.e.f. 8/10/2002. It is by the impugned order as abo ve that he has been transferred to the Converting Section as the Machine Operato r Grade I from Welder Grade I. 4. The petitioner has asserted that this has resulted in a change i n the nature of his trade and though posts of welder are lying vacant with the C orporation and are being manned by contract personnel, qualified welders like hi m are being diverted to attend to other works. This, the petitioner, has contend ed, amongst others is in contravention of Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Or ders of the Corporation (hereafter referred to as Standing Orders). 5. The Corporation in its affidavit while endorsing the impugned de cision has pleaded that the arrangement is necessitated in administrative exigen cy. With the gradual reduction of the welding jobs in the Mechanical Department and requirement of manpower at Stores, the petitioner amongst others was transfe rred to the Converting Section under the Finishing House as Operator Grade-I wit h three months in-house training to get adapted to the job of the cutter machine operator. The Corporation has sought to explain that at the new place of postin g, the petitioner would be required to adjust the cutter machine for cutting pap er rolls into different required sizes and thereafter to cut the paper into shee ts/reels by operating the machine. It has been contended that bearing in mind th e technical background of the petitioner and anticipating that with the in house job training, he would perform the works in the Converting Section satisfactori ly, he has been identified therefor. The Corporation has assured that the job ag ainst which the petitioner has been transferred does not require any special ski ll or previous experience and does not involve operation of heavy equipments. On the other hand, his technical experience can be utilized to its full potential at the new work site. The postings envisaged by the impugned order devise a patt ern to encourage optimum utilization of manpower and as the petitioner in fact h as not been performing the welding jobs for the last five years, his grievance i s misplaced. 6. In its additional affidavit, the Corporation while admitting tha t the petitioner is a workman encadered in Class III category of employees adjud ged by his pay scale and the organizational classification based thereon, has it erated that the petitioner at the Converting Section would be required to handle the machine through computer methodology and application, like bar coding for w hich a basic three months job training would be provided to him. It has been ave rred that he would be required to handle computerized board through buttons and in no case would be exposed to heavy machinery. It has been emphasized that tran sfer is an incidence of service and that in the appointment letter issued to him , the petitioner had been intimated at the first instance that he would be liabl e to be transferred to any department/section of the project or to any office of the corporation/project or its subsidiary company anywhere in India. The Corpor ation has confirmed that by the impugned transfer the petitioner’s pay and other conditions of service would not be adversely effected. It has been contended th at the transfer too is permissible under Clause 18 of the Standing Orders as in the opinion of the Corporation, the jobs required to be undertaken by the petiti oner at the Converting Section would be similar to those being performed by him. 7. Mr. Deka has urged that the petitioner’s transfer to the Convert ing Section involves change in trade, he being a trained welder, which is imperm issible under Clause 18 of the Standing Orders. While contending that the works expected to be performed as Machine Operator at the Converting Section are wholl y dissimilar to that of the Welder Grade I, the learned Counsel has argued that his engagement with the Cutting Machine in view of his advanced age and failing agility and reflexes would not be out of risk. Mr. Deka has contended that the c hange in trade at the fag end of the career would also leave the petitioner with rusted welding skills prejudicially disabling him from eking out his livelihood after his retirement. The learned Counsel maintained that the petitioner’s tran sfer is opposed to the letter and spirit of Clause 18 of the Standing Orders. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the deci sion in ET Kuriyak etc, (1979) 2 SLR 508. 8. In reply Mr. Roy has argued that the nature of the job at the Co nverting Section though not exactly identical to that of a welder, has been asse ssed by the Corporation to be similar so much so that with the in house training the petitioner with his technical background would be equipped to perform the s ame reasonably well. Reiterating the pleaded stand of the Corporation, the learn ed Counsel urged that the arrangement has been conceived of in the interest of t he institutional needs. As with time welding works in the Corporation are reduci ng, maximum utilization of the man power available has been designed. The learne d Counsel contended that the petitioner has been picked up for his technical bac kground and that the works to be performed at the Converting Section in view of the sophisticated machineries installed would not expose him to any risk whatsoe ver. Mr. Roy has urged that transfer being a condition of service and as the imp ugned order does not adversely affect any of his service conditions, the assailm ent is unsustainable in law. 8A. The pleadings of the parties and the rival submissions have rece ived the anxious consideration of the Court. The service profile of the petition er, indicates that he had been inducted in the roll of the Corporation as a weld er and after being appointed as a Technician Trainee (Welder) was regularized, c onfirmed and promoted eventually to the rank of Technician Grade I. He was trans ferred to the Commercial (Stores) Depot w.e.f. 8/10/2002, which involved estrang ement from his Welder Trade. Almost five years thereafter he is now sought to be posted out to the Converting Section as a Machine Operator Grade I. The petitio ner seemed to have no reservation on his earlier transfer to the Commercial (Sto res) Department. There is no complaint either in praesenti that his pay or other conditions of service have suffered thereby. There is no wrangle either that tr ansfer is an incidence of his service. The order dated 20/8/2007 is composite in form involving eight employees of the Corporation similarly transferred from on e department/section to the other. In house training for all have also been deci ded to be provided to them. The present therefore is not an instance where the p etitioner has been hand picked for a discriminatory or unfair or unequal treatme nt. 9. Though Clause 18 engrafts certain restrictive precepts in the ma tter of transfer, if the pay, grade, continuity and conditions of service are no t adversely effected, a transfer from ane establishment/section or job to any ot her establishment is permissible thereunder if in the opinion of the Management the jobs to be administered on transfer are of similar nature to the ones undert aken by him earlier and are capable of being performed without a special skill o r previous experience. The above provision of the Standing Order thus demonstrat es that the jobs or works to be performed on transfer need not be exactly the sa me and a reasonable likeness with the works executed earlier would be sufficient if can be attained by the workmen without applying any special skill or past ex perience. The opinion of the Management as contemplated in the above provision e ssentially envisages an element of subjectivity and value judgment and, therefor e, if manifestly not illogical, irrational or absurd would not draw interference in the exercise of power of judicial review. 10. The Corporation has emphasized that with the reduction of weldin g works, technicians employed earlier thereat, in the interest of optimum utiliz ation of available resources have been adjusted in other establishments/sections to cater to the administrative needs. It has been asserted that the petitioner with his technical background and the in house training to be extended would be proficient for the works at the Converting Section. There has been an unambiguou s assurance that having regard to the devices and the manner of operation thereo f, the petitioner would not be exposed to any risk of the kind as apprehended by him. There is no persuasive reason to dismiss the statements affirmed by the Ma nager (Legal) of the Corporation as pretentious. The petitioner’s misgivings in this regard appear to be speculative. His plea that his engagement with the Conv erting Section would blunt his welding skills is unconvincing as he had without any demur served in the Commercial (Stores) Depot for last five years. A hair sp litting analysis of the subtle differences of the works as a welder Grade I in t he Mechanical Division and Machine Operator at the Converting Section as project ed by the petitioner to repudiate the impugned decision is not warranted in the exercise of the present jurisdiction. 11. The materials available on record do not proclaim that the petit ioner is a Class IV employee and therefore under Clause 18 of the Standing Order s cannot be transferred from one establishment or the other without his consent. This is more so in view of the unrebutted stand of the Corporation that he thou gh a workman is encadered in Class III of its services. The decision in ET Kuriy ak etc, supra, turns on its own facts and does not lay down any legal propositio n of general application to be of any avail to the petitioner. For the forgoing conclusions, I am of the view that the impugned order of transfer does not merit interference. The petition thus being without any merit is dismissed. No costs.