Mr. Ratneswar Das and Mr. Shiv Chetry, Advocates v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

Judgment

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails an order dated 13.03.2025, by which he has been transferred from the post of Chief Manager (Refinery-Coord) at Paradip RC the same post, i.e., Chief Manager (Refinery- Coordination), at Barauni Terminal of the respondent. 2. The petitioner has been in the service of the respondent since the year 1999. He was posted in his present posting at Paradip, Odisha, on

28.03.2022. 3. In terms of the Transfer Policy-2024 of the respondent [“Transfer Policy”], an employee is entitled to request a transfer, and indicate certain optional locations for transfer. The petitioner made such a request on 01.12.2024, seeking transfer to Guwahati Terminal, Noonmati in Assam or to Doimukh Depot in the State of Arunachal Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:31.05.2025 19:31:00 W.P.(C) 5547/2025 Page 1 of 11 Pradesh. He referred to several health-related issues in support of his request. 4. By the impugned Office Order dated 13.03.2025, however, he was not transferred to these locations, but to Barauni in the State of Bihar. 5.

The petitioner first approached this Court against the transfer order in W.P.(C) 4593/2025. The writ petition was disposed of on

15.04.2025, with the direction that the petitioner’s representation be considered and an order be passed within three weeks thereafter. It was also directed that “status quo be maintained as to the petitioner’s posting until the petitioner's representation is decided, and for a period of 10 days thereafter”. 6. The petitioner made a representation dated 16.04.2025, pursuant to the aforesaid order. By the second impugned order, dated 17.04.2025, the petitioner’s representation has been rejected. 7. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by way of the present petition. 8. I have heard Mr. Ratneswar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. V.N. Koura, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Three principal grounds are urged in support of this writ petition: (a) That the impugned transfer is premature, as the petitioner has not been posted at Paradip for a period of “3 completed calendar years”, as provided in Clause 3.1 of the respondent’s Transfer Policy; (b) That the posting of the petitioner at Barauni, declining his request for transfer to Assam or Arunachal Pradesh, is contrary to the Transfer Policy, which prioritises joint posting of Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:31.05.2025 19:31:00 W.P.(C) 5547/2025 Page 2 of 11 working couples in the same city/cluster of cities. Mr. Das also relies upon an Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Training [“DoPT”] dated 24.11.2022. He submits that the petitioner’s spouse is a doctor working in the service of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. (c) The third contention is of mala fides. In this regard, it is submitted that an officer at the same level, who has been posted in Paradip for a longer period than the petitioner, has been retained there, and that the petitioner has been subjected to numerous transfers during his period of service. 10. The principles relating to exercise of judicial review in respect of transfer orders, are well settled. Transfer is an incidence of service1. No employee can claim transfer to a particular posting or location as a matter of right. The matter is fundamentally one of administrative exigency. A transfer order is susceptible to interference by the writ Court only in very limited circumstances, which pertain to breach of any statutory rules or transfer policy, or to mala fides. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) v. State of Bihar2 and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas3. 11. As far as the allegation of breach of the respondent’s Transfer Policy is considered, Mr. Das has cited Clauses 3.1 and 7.1 of the Transfer Policy, which provide as follows: “3 Continuous stay at a location 3.1 The minimum tenure at a location/cluster of cities shall be 3