IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 8-2-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.23823 of 2009 and 1964 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 in WP No.1964 of 2010 and MP No.2 of 2009 in WP No.23823 of 2009 S.Natarajan ..Petitioner in both petitions vs 1.The Secretary to Government Department of State Transport Corporation Limited Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. ..1st Respondent in WP 1964/2010 2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram Rep. By its Managing Director 3.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram Division Villupuram Rep. By its General Manager 4.Tirukoilur Branch Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Tirukoilur Villupuram District Rep. By its Branch Manager 5.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Cuddalore, Rep. By its General Manager ..Respondents 1 to 4 in WP 23823/09 and Respondents 2 to 5 in WP 1964/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP No.23823 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent which is made in Ka.Ku.No.50/6444/Ni 2/Tha Na A Po Ka (Vilu)/2008-64 dated 14.5.2008 and quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to post the petitioner in the third respondent branch as driver. WP No.1964 of 2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (1) to regularize the leave periods of the petitioner and to pay the increments along with arrears of salary (2) to pay the pay and allowances to the petitioner for the periods of non-allotment of duties and (3) to direct to maintain the attendance register for those who have not been allotted duty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Malaichamy For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam Special Government Pleader for R1 in WP 1964/2010 Mr.Jayeesh B.Dolia for RR2 to 5 in WP 1964/2010 and for RR1 to 4 in WP 23823/2009 COMMON ORDER The petitioner is one and the same in both the writ petitions. 2.The petitioner in the first writ petition came forward to challenge the order of transfer posting him from Tirukoilur Branch to Cuddalore Branch. The petitioner did not join in the transferred place, but however filed W.P.No.16282 of 2008 seeking for salary disbursement. This Court by an order dated 8.9.2008, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the authorities to consider his representation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition in WP No.15609 of 2009 seeking for a direction to allot duty. That writ petition was disposed of on 5.8.2009, with a direction to consider his representation. Now, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the order of transfer. 3.The above matter was admitted on 20.11.2009. By the time, the petitioner had joined at the transferred place on 5.10.2009. The petitioner has stated this fact in the affidavit. In the interim application, only notice was ordered. Mr.Jayeesh B.Dolia appears for the transport corporation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.When that writ petition was pending, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in WP No.1964 of 2010 making the State Government also party and seeking for regularisation of the leave period including payment of increments along with arrears of salary and the payment of allowances for the period of non-allotment of duties and for maintenance of attendance register. This writ petition came up for admission. At that time, the earlier writ petition was directed to be posted along with this. Accordingly, both the writ petitions appear. 5.In the second writ petition, Mr.Jayeesh B.Dolia takes notice for the respondents 2 to 5 and Mr.A.Arumugam learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent. The outcome of the second writ petition would be determined on the basis of the first writ petition. 6.In the first writ petition, challenge is to an order of transfer passed by the General Manager of the Transport Corporation. By the grounds raised in the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh V. State of U.P. And Others (2009 AIR SCW 7461). The passages found in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 may be useful, and they are extracted hereunder: "7.In N.K.Singh v. Union of India & Ors., this Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision. ... 9..... The High Court should have appreciated the true extent of scrutiny into a matter of transfer and the limited scope of judicial review. Respondent No.5 being a Sub- Registrar, it is for the State Government or for that matter Inspector General of Registration to decide about his place of posting. As to at what place Respondent No.5 should be posted is an exclusive prerogative of the State Government and in exercise of that prerogative, Respondent No.5 was transferred from Hapur-II to Gazhiabad-IV keeping in view administrative exigencies. 10... The exercise undertaken by the High Court did not fall within its domain and was rather uncalled for.... The High Court entered into an arena which did not belong to it and thereby committed serious error of law. The only question required to be seen was whether transfer of Respondent No.5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was actuated with mala fides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules." 7.In view of the above, WP No.23823 of 2009 will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. 8.Since the order of transfer dated 14.5.2008, was not interfered with and the petitioner was allowed to join duty on 5.10.2009, it is for the respondents 2 to 5 in WP No.1964 of 2010 to pass appropriate orders regulating the period of non-employment of the petitioner in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Corporation and communicate the same to the petitioner. With this observation, WP No.1964 of 2010 also stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv To 1. The Secretary to Government Department of State Transport Corporation Limited Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 2. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram. 3. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram Division, Villupuram. 4. The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Tirukoilur Branch, Tirukoilur, Villupuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Cuddalore. + 2 c.cs. to M/s. Jayesh B. Dolia, Advocate. S.R.Nos.7678, 7677. + 2 c.cs. to Mr. R. Malaichamy, Advocate. S.R.No.7817. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.8024. WP Nos.23823 of 2009 and 1964 of 2010 NSM (CO) GSK 16.02.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/