- (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working on the post of Assistant (C) with the respondent National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Company') and having been transferred from Divisional Office, Jodhpur to Branch Office, Balotara, has challenged the transfer order dated 18. 08. 2006 (Annex. 7) as being violative of statutory requirements.
(2.) PUT in a nut-shell, the contentions of the petitioner are that a part of Transfer Policy as framed, and the consequential Administrative Instructions as issued by the respondent Company are not in conformity with the statutory Scheme related with such transfers; and that his transfer order has been issued by an officer who could not have been and has not been authorised to do so; and further that the transfer order has been issued even contrary to the terms of the Transfer Policy. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was appointed by the respondent Company as sub-staff on compassionate grounds by the order dated 01. 12. 1983 (Annex. 1), he joined the services at Branch Office, Jodhpur on 19. 12. 1983, and he was confirmed on the post of sub-staff with effect from 19. 06. 1984; then, he was promoted as Record Clerk by the order dated 15. 06. 1989 (Annex. 2) and joined as such on 27. 06. 1989; and then, he was promoted to the post of Assistant (C) by the order dated 22. 09. 2000 (Annex. 3) and joined as such on 22. 09. 2000. The petitioner has referred to the notification dated 21. 12. 2005 (Annex. 4) whereby the Government of India issued General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scale and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Scheme of 2005') in order to amend, with effect from 01. 08. 2002, the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scale and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme of 1974'); and has pointed out that paragraph 18 of the Scheme of 1974 dealing with 'transfer and change of place of work' of the employees was substituted by the provisions contained in paragraph 11 of the Amendment Scheme of 2005 whereby the Company or Corporation may frame Transfer and Mobility Policy, as approved by its Board; and has averred that under the said provision, any employee of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff may be transferred from one department to another in the same office, from one office to another in the same station or from one station to another only on the basis of requirement or need. (Sub-paragraph (1) of the said paragraph 18 as substituted by the Scheme of 2005 being of repeated occurrence in the discussion hereafter, has also been referred to as 'the paragraph 18 (1) of the Scheme' and, similarly, sub-paragraph (2) thereof has also been referred to as 'the paragraph 18 (2) of the Scheme' ). The petitioner has further pointed out that in pursuance to the said notification, i. e. , the Amendment Scheme of 2005, the respondent Company issued a Transfer and Mobility Policy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transfer Policy' or 'tmp') for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff on 17. 05. 2006 (Annex. 5) and as per sub-clause 5. 5 of Clause 5 of TMP, the competent authority, if it considers necessary to do so to meet the office exigencies shall have discretion of restricting the number of transfers from a particular station to a maximum of 25% of the total classwise (Class III and IV separately) strength of the employees at that station and, as per subclause 5. 6, a classwise list of employees for each station who have completed ten years of continuous stay at the particular station may be prepared and in the descending order of the length of stay, from the top of such list, a number equivalent to 25% may be taken out. Thus, according to the petitioner, an employee who is senior in the class shall be transferred in the first instance. The petitioner has pointed out that by clause 7 of TMP, General Manager (Personnel) of the Company is authorised to prescribe the competent authorities for issuance of various types of transfer orders under the said Transfer Policy besides framing the Administrative Instructions for implementation of various provisions of this Policy; and has averred that according the notification issued by the Central Government (i. e. , the Amendment Scheme of 2005) the CMD was the only authorised person to transfer the services of the Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff and there is a provision that he may authorise any other officer in this behalf as competent authority; and has, therefore, stated the meaning that as per TMP issued by the respondent Company, he has authorised General Manager (Personnel) to make transfer order but the said General Manager has no authority to further delegate power to transfer any employee.
(3.) THE petitioner has further averred that to his knowledge, the respondent Company has issued Administrative Instructions on the said Transfer Policy but being not in possession of such Instructions issued by the respondent Company, has placed on record as Annexure-6 a copy of the similar nature Instructions issued by another insurance company, namely, THE New India Assurance Company Limited. It may be pointed out that during the course of submissions in this matter, learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a copy of the Instructions so issued by the respondent Company and, as agreed, the same have been taken into consideration as substitute of the document Annexure-6. THE petitioner has pointed out that the competent authority for issuance of transfer order has been prescribed in clause 10 of such Administrative Instructions; and as per subclause (2) of clause 10, for transfer from one office to the other within the same region, the prescribed authority is Chief Regional Manager at regional office. Stating his case, the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2 (the Regional Manager of the respondent Company at Jaipur) has, by the order dated 18. 08. 2006 (Annex. 7), transferred his services from Divisional Office at Jodhpur to the Branch Office at Balotara; and, according to the petitioner, there was a stay order from Hon'ble Madras High Court wherefor the transfer order could not be put into effect. While maintaining that only the CMD or the General Manager were the competent authority to issue transfer order, the petitioner has contended that even as per Administrative Instructions, the Chief Regional Manager was the competent authority and the order issued by the Regional Manager remains unauthorised. According to the petitioner, Smt. Sangeeta Vijay and Shri Ravindra Bohra were appointed as Assistant in the year 1985 at Jodhpur office and Shri Rajesh Dadhich was appointed as Assistant in the year 1987; and Smt. Sangeeta was promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistant in the month of September 2003 and she jointed her services on the promoted post at Jodhpur. The petitioner has suggested that himself having been appointed/promoted as Assistant only in the year 2000, the said three employees are senior to him in the cadre of Assistant by about 13 years and has made a comment that the said three persons 'are senior to petitioner by more than two years in the particular class'. The petitioner has given the nomenclature of the different posts in the respondent Company that are divided into four classes and has averred that being junior person he could not have been transferred. ;