1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 995 of 2009 Dr Miss Sandhya v. CGM, WCL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr M.S. Gupta, Adv for petitioner. Mr S.C. Mehadia, Adv for respondent Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 31st March 2009 1. Heard Mr M.S. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr S.C. Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of order of transfer dated 23.6.2008 as well as decision taken by respondent Western Coalfields Limited on the representation of the petitioner against the order of transfer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a doctor working with respondent WCL and is discharging her duties in a fair and just manner as well as as per rules. It is contended that petitioner was transferred to 2 Nagpur from Ballarsha vide order of transfer dated 7.7.2007. It is further contended that tenure as per the guidelines at one place is about five years, whereas petitioner has been transferred from Nagpur within nine months of her joining her duties at Nagpur. It is also contended that the stand taken by respondent WCL that behaviour of the petitioner with other employees of the WCL including members of labour class was bad, is totally basless. It is contended that the petitioner on the other hand is completely aboveboard and does not indulge in any kind of illegal activities or misbehaves with anybody. It is contended that the petitioner is made scape-goat by issuing charge-sheet by the respondent. The charges levied against the petitioner are unfounded and cannot be sustained. It is contended that the impugned order of transfer is punitive and has been issued without following the principles of natural justice. 3. Mr S.C. Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent WCL has submitted that behaviour of the petitioner was causing lot of problems in the smooth working of the Department. Officers of the WCL including members of labour class were wholly unhappy with the behaviour of the petitioner and, therefore, there was likelihood of some unrest in the Department on this count. Transfer of the petitioner is made purely on administrative grounds and is also not punitive in nature. It is 3 contended that the petitioner, though transferred vide order dated 23.6.2008, till this date for one reason or the other, did not join her duties at the place of transfer. It is further contended that WCL has also issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on account of misbehaviour with the other employees of WCL. 4. We have considered the rival contentions. Transfer is incidence of service and the Department is entitled to transfer its employees considering the administrative exigencies. However, action of the Department must be just, fair and in the public interest. In the instant case, the petitioner was brought to Nagpur in the year 2007 and within a short period was again transferred to Ballarsha by impugned order dated 23.6.2008. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, it appears that the Department was expecting likelihood of some unrest if the petitioner is continued at Nagpur. Charge-sheet also appears to have been issued to the petitioner. It is no doubt true that if the transfer is punitive in nature, the Department is required to observe the principles of natural justice before issuing order of transfer. However, if order of transfer is issued for the purpose of smooth working of the Department and based on administrative exigencies, it is sustainable in law. 5. In the circumstances, we do not want to show any indulgence so far as the order of transfer is concerned. 4 However, considering the fact that order of transfer was issued on 23.6.2008 and more than nine months' perios is already over, it will be appropriate to direct respondent to give effect to the said order of transfer from 31st May 2009. 6. So far as eligibility of the petitioner for payment of salary and other monetary reliefs is concerned, it is for the respondent WCL to consider this aspect on its own merit in accordance with law. 7. With these observations and directions writ petition is disposed of. Judge. Judge. hsj