D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner has been transferred from Narora to Tarapur by an order dated March 23. 1999 contained in Annexure-6 and pursuant thereto the petitioner was relieved from his duties from Narora by an office order dated 24th March. 1999 contained in Annexurc-8. These two orders have been challenged by Mr. L. C. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the order of transfer is mala fide and that on the terms and conditions of service, the petitioner is not liable to be transferred from Narora to Tarapur. He has elaborated the grounds of mala fide with the facts of union rivalry as well as certain complaints. He further contends that the transfer order is a mid-session transfer and that though order of transfer has been dressed as an administrative exigency but in effect, it was not an administrative exigency. In the certified Standing Order, there is no provision for transferring an employee from one unit to another. On this ground, Mr. Srivastava had assailed the order of transfer and the consequent order of release. He had also pointed out that the other persons who had already been transferred have not been released and that many others who could have been transferred and working long time in the unit have not been transferred.
(2.) Mr. Chandra Sekhar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the alleged union rivalry or the complaint has no relation with the transfer order. The rivalry or the complaint may be between the two workers of the union but the Management has nothing to do with it and it cannot be dragged to such dispute between two workers or two unions if there be any. He further contends that the order of transfer has been made exclusively on administrative necessity and it is not a single order of transfer. Several orders of transfer have been issued and many of them have joined the transferred post. He had pointed out that the transfer is an incidence of service. He refers to the offer of absorption in Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (N.P.C.I.L.). In explanatory clarifications, points 1.2.6 at page 23 of the booklet. Liability for service has been prescribed to the extent that those on the rolls of N.P.C.I.L., will be liable to serve anywhere in India. From Annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit, it appears that the petitioner had exercised his option for absorption in N.P.C.I.L. on 15th January, 1999 stating that he had gone through the terms of absorption in N.P.C.I.L. and had fully understood them. Thus, admittedly, as it appears that the condition of service of the petitioner is that he is liable to be transferred anywhere in India and as such, the transfer is an incidence of service. He further contends that allegation of mala fide does not find support from the materials produced. On these grounds, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Srivastava had relied on the decision in the case of Air Gases Mazdoor Sangh and others v. Indian Air Gases Limited and others. LIC 1977 II) 575, and in the case of Nabi Ahmad Khan v. State of V. P. and others, (1996) 2 UPLBEC !202 and an unreported judgment of this Court in Ciuil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44706 of 1998, M. C. Goel and another v. Union of India, in support of his contention that by reason of the said decision, the petitioner cannot be transferred.;