HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BIL4SPUR (C6.} WRITPETITtON N0-2474 OF 2003 Nawab Khan & others Versus The Seneral Manager/Personal Manager (Manpower) A others POST FOR ORDER ON 2nd September. 2003 Sd/- l..C.Bhadoo A.F.S. HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BIL^SPUR IC.&.) WRFT PFTmON N0.2474 OF 2003 PETITEONERS! RESPON&ENTS; 1. 4. Versus Nawab Khan, 5/o Shri Babu Khan. Aged about 35 years, Working as G. M.az. Cat.-II, Centrol E A M Workshop, South Eastern Coslfields Ltd., Korba, R/o SECLColony, Korba, Tehsil A &istt. Kor-ba (C.6.) S. Murti Babu, S/o Late Shri Tarkeshwsr, Aged about 33 ye<rs, Working as S. Maz., Cat.-I, CentrQJ E AM Workshop. 5ECL, Korba, R/o SECL Colony, Korba, Tehsil & Distt. Korba (C.G.) Mahesh Prasod 6upta. 5/o Shri Phul Chand ©upta, Aged about 41 years, Working as 6. Maz., Cat.-II, Central E &M Workshop, SECL, Korba, TeshiltS; Distt. Korba (C.&.) fianesh Lai Rcyput, 5/o Late 5hri Charanjit Lal, Aged about 27years, Working oS@. Max., Cat.-I, Central E & M Workshop, 5ECL, Korba, R/o SECL Coiony, Korba, Teshil & Distt. Korba (C.&.5 The (Seneral Manager/Per'sonQ! Manager (Manpower), South Eastem CoalfieidsLtd.. Head Office: Bilaspur, Tehsil & Oistt. Biiaspur (C.6.) The Personol Manager, Central E &M Workshop, 5ECL, Korba Area, Tehsil & bistt. Korba (C.G.) The ^eneral Manager. Central E AM Workshop, SECL, Korba Area, Tehsil & DiStt. Korba (C.6.) y' 4. TTie Chief Senepa! Monager, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., KorbaAr'ea, Teshil & Oistt. Korba (C.6.) Present: - Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, counse! for the petitioners Ssfore; Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo. J O R E) ER (Passed on 2nd September, 2003) 1. The petitioner-s have preferred this writ petition under (^rticle 226/ 227 of 1+ie Constitution of India, by which they have chaiienged the order dated 05.08.2003 transferring the petitioners by the Senera! Manager, Centra! E iS M Workshop, 5ECL, Korba. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the employees of SECL. Respondent No.3, some time in the first quarter of the year 2002, made a request to respondent No.4 for transferring the sur'plus empioyees in the sstabSishment of respondehts 2 &3. On that request, respondent No.4 invited wiliingne$s from the employees for posting theni in the Central E & M Workshop, 5ECL, Korba. Qi that the petitioners and otiier empioyees of respondent No.4 submitted their wiiiingness for working in Central E & AA Workshop, Korba. ,4fter receiving the wiilingness, the mati'er was forwarded to respondent No.l for issuing necessdry transfer orders and resppndent No.l transferred the petitioners vide AnnexwesP-2 &P-3. Petifioners 2 & 4 hardiy' worked for about 14 months and petitioners 1 & 3 have hardly worked for about a year at CentraE E& M Workshop, Korba. Thereafter, vide the impugned order the petitioneps ha.ve been reverted back to ttieir origina! places. The petitioners hove taken 1+ie company accommodation at CentralE & M Workshop, Korbaand they have besn shifteci with their bag and baggage. The impugned order of transfer has not beeti passed bn administrativfe exigencies as th^ petitioneij's were 1' 'f .'•^^^riWBffieBnt^^ transferred on vacdnt posts, therefore, the orders of reverting the services of the petitioners are iliegal, arbitrary cuid against the principles of naturai justice. When once respondents 2 & 3 accepted the services of the petitioners, then the question does not arise for reverting back because the services of 1+ie petiTioners have been acijusted on the vaaant posts tying in Central E A M Workshop, Korba. 3. I have heard the learned couhse! for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. It is on admitte.d position that the petitionersare en"iployees of 5ECL The petitioners have not brought on record any document, ruies & regulctions. circulars or orders which shows that it is necesssry for ihe administrstion to obtain consent of its empioyees while transferring them from one unit to another unit without which it cannot be held that the respendents were not within the right to tronsfer the petitioners back to their original place vide the impugned orders. Moreover, even as per the contention of - 1+ie petitioners, their servi'ces were transferred to Central E & M Workshop, Korba, against the existing VQcancies after obtaining willingness from them. Now they ha.ve been reverted back to their original plsce. As mentioned above, it has not been mentioned orbrought on record any material which shows that the petitioners cannot be reverted back without their consent or the petitioners were transferred to Central E d AA Workshop with an understanding or condition that they sre being transferred on permanent basis. Moreoyer, there is no order showing that -rhe services of the petitioners were permanentiy absorbed and piaced under Central E & M Workshop. The petitioners wers transferred to Centra! E d M Workshop and simply they have been reverted which does not effect the rights of the petitioners. 'The transfer order (Annexure P-1) by which seventeen persons have been reverted to their original plcces speaks that "the following emptoyees of CW5, Korba who have be?n transferred to Korba Area are hereby refea^d with effect frorq -^, 07.08.2003 (F.N.)". This order itself shows that the services of various employees were requisitionsd with a purpose and they have now been re!eased w.e.f. 07.08.2003 to their respectivs places. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in this petition. The same is liabie to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- l-.C.Bhado) Judge f-^s r^^- •Sfftt.