News, Views and Information about NRIs.

A NRI Sabha of Canada's trusted source of News & Views for NRIs around the World.



November 5, 2011

HC dismisses Scientist’s plea

Challenged refusal to quash transfer
Chandigarh, November 5
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Varinder Mohan, Scientist “E” working in ETDC, Mohali, a wing of the Union Ministry of Communication and Information Technology.

He had challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s refusal to quash his transfer from Mohali to Bangalore.
He had contended that the order of transfer was actuated by malafides on the part of director- general, Standardisation, Testing and Quality Certification, and Mohali ETDC director Ravinder Sahi.
Assailing the validity of the transfer orders, the applicant argued that the malafide on the part of the respondents was evident from the fact that two orders were issued the same day.
One order was without the applicant’s name, while the other contained the same. The issuance of the transfer orders on the same day with the same dispatch number indicated malafides. But the division bench comprising of Justice Permod Kohli and Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa declined to accept the arguments.
Advocate Kapil Kakkar, specially engaged by the Union Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, argued that the transfer orders were not issued at the level of director-general or director, ETDC, Mohali, but were issued in pursuance of the transfer committee proceedings held on May 10.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Kohli held that it is settled law that the transfer was an incidence of service and no employee or government servant has any vested right to remain posted on a particular post or place.
“From the averments made in the petition, it is also found that the petitioner was posted in Mohali in April 2005 as Scientist ‘E’ and has been transferred vide order dated July 8, 2011 i.e. after a period of more than six years. The petitioner should not have any grouse against his transfer after a long stay of six years. We do not find any valid ground warranting interference in the judgment of the Tribunal or the order of transfer,” held the Bench.

No comments:

Post a Comment