Transfer of an Employee is the Prerogative of an Employer: CAT
JKUT (Jammu), July-07-2021-( JNF):- A Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal Comprising Judicial Member Rakesh Sagar Jain and Administrative Member Anand Mathur holds that transfer is a prerogative of the employer and the Court/Tribunal should not interfere unless it is alleged and proved that the transfer is an act of malice or in violation of any statutory rules.
CAT while dismissing the petition seeking direction to to back the applicants to wing SHQ Srinagar as per earlier orders in pursuance whereof the applicants had been brought to the wing i.e., AHJ Airport, in the interest of justice.
The case of applicants is that in the year 2019 they were transferred to Anti Hi-jacking Airport, Srinagar. By way of impugned order dated 25.02.2020, the applicants have been prematurely and in violation of transfer policy dated 06.07.2017 transferred from AHJ to postings in various places whereas other persons with longer tenures have not been disturbed and the applicants have been discriminated against in the matter of their transfers. Hence, the present O.A. seeking quashment of impugned order of transfer.
CAT after hearing Adv Parvaiz Ahmed for the petitioners whereas AAG Amit Gupta with Deputy AG Sudesh Magotra for the UT, observed that is a prerogative of the employer and the Court/Tribunal should not interfere unless it is alleged and proved that the transfer is an act of malice or in violation of any statutory rules. For any person who joins the service of the Government or its agencies, transfer is a concomitant part thereof. It is only when the transfer results in serious hardship to the employee or is made as a punitive measure, that a scrutiny can be undertaken by the Courts or Tribunals. The guidelines stipulated for effecting transfers apply to the routine transfers. There, again, the courts have permitted latitude to the employers to work out the transfers in such a way that efficiency of the administration does not suffer. No right as such accrues to the employee from the guidelines. Added to that, the administrative transfers and those which are ordered in public interest, are not, by and large, governed by the policy guidelines, exigency of service and efficiency of administration become paramount considerations.
CAT further observed that w also note the arguments of respondents that the airports are very security sensitive installations prone to attacks from terrorists and are required to be guarded very securely. What is the policy to guard such installations is exclusively in the realm of the security administration and the courts have no role to interfere with security related policies of the Government which is the job of security experts. It is the sole prerogative of the Government as to which organisation, personnel etc are to be deployed at the airports. If the Government wants to make the airport more secure by transferring security personnel to and from the airport, it is the exclusive function of the Government subject to order not being malafide or in violation of specific provisions of law. This Tribunal does not have expertise in security related measures to give instructions to the Government as to how the vital installations of the Government are to be secured and therefore, we would not interfere with security measures put in place to secure the vital installations necessary for defence of the Court. The applicants will do well to remember that they are part of a belt force meant to secure the country from external and internal threats and liable to be posted at a place thought appropriate by the Government. With these observations, CAT dismissed the petition. JNF