Smt. Vandana Gurnani v. Union of India and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.16 17:47:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:24121-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 317 of 2025 Smt. Vandana Gurnani D/o Rajesh Gurnani Aged About 36 Years Working As Senior Accountant At Regional Office, Raipur At Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation Of India Ltd. (TRIFED), Pandari, Raipur - 492004, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o Flat No. 206, Block No. D, Krishna Apartment, Mowa, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Ground Floor, D Wing, Rajendra Prasad Road, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2 - The Regional Manager, Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation Of India Ltd. (TRIFED), Regional Office, Plot No. 7, Behind Mata Garage, In Front Of Jai Bhole Complex, Pandari, Raipur - 492004, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy General Manager (Pers. And Admn.) Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development, Federation Of India Ltd. (TRIFED), NSIC Business Park, Nsic Estate, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110020
Legal Reasoning
4 - Shri Parth Pande Working As Shop Incharge Of Tribal Shop - Amar Palace, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 2 For Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents/Union of : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor India General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 16.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents / Union of India. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 01.04.2025 (Smt. Vandana Gurnani vs. Union of India and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2147 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case according to the appellant is that the appellant has applied for the post of Senior Accountant in Group B of the Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India Limited (TRIFED). The respondent authorities have accepted her application form and given Admit Card for the examination of the aforesaid post. They have declared result of the appellant wherein appellant's name has been announced in list 2 at Serial No. 3 in UR-5 Category for the post of Senior Accountant bearing Roll No. 13152200004. Thereafter, the 3 appellant was initially appointed on dated 26.11.2020 as Senior Accountant at the Head Office of TRIFED, New Delhi and posted on dated 08.12.2020 at Regional Office of TRIFED, Raipur (C.G.). The appellant has been transferred to the Regional Office of TRIFED, Bhopal on dated 18.02.2022. Thereafter, the appellant has been transferred vide its order dated 11.11.2024 to join her new place of posting at Head Office of TRIFED, New Delhi which was later on dated 11.02.2025 modified as new place of posting at Regional Office of TRIFED, Raipur (C.G.). The Respondent No. 2 has again transferred the appellant vide its transfer order dated 04.03.2025 from Regional Office of TRIFED, Raipur to Tribal Shop of TRIFED at Amar Palace, Raipur as Shop In charge. The appellant has filed an application dated 06.03.2025 for the cancellation of her transfer order dated 04.03.2025 through the Speed Post and Email before the Managing Director of TRIFED, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, whereby several issues were raised. The Respondent No. 2 has issued transfer order dated 04.03.2025 in illegal manner and posted the appellant as Shop Incharge in the Tribal Shop of TRIFED at Amar Palace, Raipur (C.G.) where there is no post of Senior Accountant/Junior Accountant. As per the job description of the appellant in the advertisement for the post of Senior Accountant in the TRIFED, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the appellant's job description includes assisting to Sr. Manager (Finance)/DM(Finance)/Regional Manager in Finance & Accounts 4 matter. Knowledge of tally software, excel preparation of annual accounts, GFT, GST and other tax matters awareness. He/She is in charge of one or two sections. Responsible for timely disposal of all DAKs, Bills and other communication received in his section after usual checks as enumerated in Civil Accounts Manual/General Financial Rules. Any other work assigned time to time by superiors. Any other task assigned from time to time by management. Hence, the appellant is facing difficulty to be worked as Shop Incharge in the Tribal Shop, Amar Palace, Raipur (C.G.) wherein the selling of the tribal made items are done. Since, the appellant has expertise in finance and accounts department and has been appointed for the post of Senior Accountant but has been transferred to the Tribal Shop as Shop Incharge only just to harass the appellant as she has no knowledge to run the Tribal Shop in any manner. On dated 10.03.2025, the appellant has given an application regarding shortage of amount of Rs. 4,27,604/- in the financial session of 2024-25 done by the Respondent No. 4 namely Parth in the Tribal Shop of TRIFED at Amar Palace, Raipur (C.G.) to the Managing Director of TRIFED. The appellant in the application dated 10.03.2025 has stated that the Respondent No. 4 i.e., Parth Pandey is appointed as the hire-fire/daily wages employee. Therefore, if the shortage of material in the Tribal Shop is done by Parth Pandey i.e., Respondent No. 4, then the Respondent Authorities shall held the appellant jointly responsible for the 5 shortage of material and since, the appellant is regular appointed employee, therefore, she will be jointly responsible for the shortage which consequently leads to the deduction of her monthly salary just to recover the shortage of amount even though respondent No. 4 is purely and solely responsible for the shortage of amount. The Commercial Executive (hire/fire) employee namely Parth Pandey who is Respondent No. 4 is the employee of hire-fire/daily wages and can be revoked from the aforesaid post without giving prior notice, but appellant herein is a regular employee who has been appointed for the post of Senior Accountant by giving examination and therefore, for any mistake committed by Parth Pandey, the appellant herein will be jointly responsible, forthwith. The illegal issuance of materials from the Tribal Shop situated at Amar Palace, Raipur (C.G.) by the Respondent No. 4 namely Parth Pandey is being done without mentioning the buyers name and signature. 4. The transfer order dated 04.03.2025 has been passed deliberately just to harass the appellant in various ways. It is intentionally mentioned in the transfer order dated 04.03.2025 that in case of any shortage/excess of stock materials in the Tribal Shop of TRIFED, the appellant will be jointly responsible along with Respondent No. 4 namely Parth Pandey but, herein Respondent No. 4 is hire-fire daily wages employee. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ 6 appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 is unreasonably, unwarranted. Therefore, hit by the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Para 5 of the impugned order dated 01.04.2025, it is mentioned that the transfer order of the appellant has been passed by the concerned Respondent Authorities for smooth functioning of the work of the department whereas there is no such work for the Senior Accountant to be worked as a Shop Incharge in the Tribal Shop of TRIFED at Raipur (C.G.) whereas the Finance and Account Department is to be managed by the Senior Accountant at Regional Office of Raipur of TRIFED. He further submits that the transfer order passed by the respondent authority is just to harass the appellant as the appellant is unaware of management done in the Tribal Shop of TRIFED at Raipur (C.G.) and only knowledge of Finance and Accounts Work, tally software, excel, preparation of annual accounts, GFT, GST and other tax matters is the work which is to be done by the Senior Accountant of TRIFED. He further submits that the appellant is a female and also, she is not able to go to her house within stipulated time as when she was posted as Senior Accountant in the Regional Office of TRIFED at Raipur (C.G.), the timing was from 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM from Monday to Friday in a week but after the transfer order dated 04.03.2025, timing is from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM at the Tribal Shop Amar Palace Raipur (C.G.) which opens every day in 7 a week. Therefore, it will be difficult situation on the part of appellant to live in that manner as there will be no holiday for her. Further, there is no separate washrooms for females. He also submits that the appellant is working in the department of the Respondent Authorities i.e., TRIFED in very sincere manner and hence, there is no any complaints regarding to the work of the appellant. The Regional Manager of the TRIFED, Raipur (C.G.) has passed the transfer order dated 04.03.2025, which clearly shows the intention of Respondent No. 2. He contended that prior to the posting of the appellant, one person namely Laxman Swaroop, Senior Accountant has been posted at Regional Office, Raipur TRIFED and not on the Tribal Shop Amar Palace. The post of Senior Accountant is of Finance and Accounts Department which is situated in the Regional Office of the TRIFED. Therefore, there is no Finance and Accounts Department in the Tribal Shop and accordingly, there is no post of Senior Accountant in the Tribal Shop. He further contended that learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 that the additional charge of Tribal Shop of TRIFED is given to the appellant while it is transfer order and complete charge of the Tribal Shop will be given to the appellant as posting has been given as Shop Incharge. The appellant in the application dated 10.03.2025 has stated that Respondent No. 4 i.e., Parth Pandey is appointed as the hire-fire/daily wages employee. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by 8 learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents / Union of India opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the
Decision
writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing that the appellant has been posted within a local area i.e. from Regional Office, Raipur to Tribal Shop of TRIFED, Raipur, therefore, the order impugned cannot be termed as order of transfer, only the charge of another office of the same department has been given to the appellant. In the order impugned, it has been clearly mentioned that in the interest of administration, the appellant has been posted as Shop In-charge, therefore, it cannot be treated as illegal and arbitrary. The order impugned has been passed for smooth functioning of the work of the department and the Court cannot interfere with such type of orders, which is purely administrative in nature. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any ground that the order impugned has been passed with mala-fide intention or the 9 same in violation of any statutory provisions. Learned Single Judge also observed that it is a settled law that transfer is an incident of Service and that who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. It is also well settled that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents annexed with writ appeal as also with writ petition and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu