Shri Prashant Kumar Saini v. Union Of India, Through Director, Ministry Of Heavy

1. Union Of India, Through Director, Ministry Of Heavy Industries, Department Of Heavy Industry, Udyog Bhawan, Maulana Azad Marg, New Delhi-110023

2. Rajasthan Electronics And Instruments Limited, Through Managing Director, Reil House, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

3. Rajasthan Electronics And Instruments Limited, Through General Manager (Works), At 2, Kanakpura Industrial Area, Sirsi Road, Jaipur-302034 (Rajasthan) India

4. Rajasthan Electronics And Instruments Limited, Through Additional General Manager (P And Ir Department), At 2, Kanakpura Industrial Area, Sirsi Road, Jaipur-302034 (Rajasthan) India ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Rachit Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma, Adv. through VC with Mr. Divyanshu Charan, Adv. Mr.Devesh Yadav, CGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 12/02/2026

By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the General Manager (Works) of Rajasthan Electronics & Instruments Limited, [2026:RJ-JP:6868] (2 of 4) [CW-8694/2025] Jaipur, whereby the petitioner was transferred on the post of Manager (E) of Electronics Department to Manager (R&D), Patna.

Learned counsel, by challenging the transfer order, submits that the respondent-REIL has issued one employee’s transfer policy, which is the self contained code for regulating transfer of the employees. Learned counsel indicates that as per the clause 5 (c) of the Transfer Policy, an employee transferred from one Division/Regional Office to another Division/Regional Office will not be transferred back to the previous Division/Regional Office from where he was transferred for a period of minimum three years. At the strength of such condition of transfer policy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he was working in R&D Division, where from he was transferred on 27.06.2023, therefore, in view of clause 5 (c) of transfer policy, impugned transfer order dated 21.04.2025, which has been issued within a period of three years is illegal and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that clause 6 (c) of the transfer policy, the employees were required to be rotated from one Division to another Division, whereas there was so many examples where the Officers, who have stayed for much longer period than the petitioner, yet have not been transferred and have been retained at their respective place of posting. Whereas the petitioner has been transferred frequently in violation of the policy. Learned counsel submits that as his wife was suffering from some medical problems, therefore, he submitted representation which was to be considered by the respondents in view of class 14 (ii) of the policy, yet till this date [2026:RJ-JP:6868] (3 of 4) [CW-8694/2025] the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been addressed by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that at the time when the transfer order was issued, the petitioner was in the middle of certain projects of national importance and the transfer in question is thus, against the public interest, therefore, he prayed for quashing the transfer order.

Learned counsel submits that although, he has joined at the place of transfer pursuant to order dated 21.04.2025, yet his rights to challenge the transfer order have been protected by the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the impugned transfer order has been passed strictly in accordance with the transfer policy and on occurrence of administrative exigency. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has not alleged any malafides against any of the Officers and the transfer order has been issued in a routine manner without there being any personal bias against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned transfer order dated 21.04.2025 is nothing but a bonafide administrative measure undertaken by the respondents in order to rationalize the manpower and operational efficiency in terms of clause 3 and 5 of the Transfer Policy and he submits that clause 3 and 5 of the Transfer Policy grants liberty to the respondents to transfer any employee at any time. In view of above submission, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition. [2026:RJ-JP:6868] (4 of 4) [CW-8694/2025]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is settled proposition of law that transfer policy is a provision for in house management of particular organization and cannot be enforced by way of filing writ petition due to not having any statutory force behind such transfer policy, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that while issuing the impugned transfer order, the respondents have violated sudden clauses of transfer policy, would not entitle the petitioner to challenge the transfer order by way of filing this writ petition.

It is settled that no employee has got right to be posted at a particular place for all times to come and the employer while exercising its power, in administrative exigency can transfer any of the employee as suitable to the employer in order to rotate the employees as well as to rationalize the manpower. It is also clear by perusing condition No.3 of appointment order dated

22.10.2009 of the petitioner that his services were liable to be transferred anywhere in India/abroad or to any section, department or establishment.

In view of above, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Jatin /225 (ANAND SHARMA),J