Pk Jha v. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation

VEENA BIRBAL, J MAY 26, 2010 kks

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: May 26th, 2010 + W.P.(C) No. 2094/2010 P.K. JHA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate . -versus- MINERALS & METALS TRADING CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajinder Dhawan with Ms. Shafaalii Dhawan, Advocates CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes Veena Birbal, J. (oral) * 1. Rule. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MITCO") on 13.11.1985. The said company was originally incorporated on 18.06.1973 as a 100% subsidiary of the respondent and the same now forms the Mica Division of the respondent. On 01.04.1985, the respondent came up with a "MMTC (Staff) Promotion Policy, 1984". Clause 6.1 of the said promotion policy provides that there will be no transfer in the staff cadre from one region to another except if the same is due to vigilance proceedings and/or desired by some outside agency like CBI. On 08.04.1996, MITCO merged with the respondent under the Rehabilitation Scheme and the staff officials of MITCO became the employees of the respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner and other similarly placed employees made a representation to the respondent for giving them a benefit of pay revision which have been given to other employees (other than merged employees from the erstwhile MITCO) of the respondent but the respondent did not pay any heed to it. Petitioner and other employees have also filed a writ petition bearing no. 9994/2009 against the respondent seeking indulgence of this court for giving their dues at par with the employees of the respondent. It is alleged that in order to harass the petitioner and few other employees, respondent had issued transfer orders with the sole motive to harass them. It is stated that the petitioner has been transferred to Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Bhavan, Jammu vide office order dated 20.01.2010 on rotational basis. On 29.01.2010, another office order has been issued whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the office at Jhandewalan in order to join at Jammu. Petitioner requested for a cancellation of the transfer order as the petitioner has an old aged mother of 95 years as well as a son who has to undergo surgery for his legs which were fractured. Petitioner also requested that he was unable to go with the meagre salary. Petitioner applied for an earned leave which was turned down. It is prayed that the impugned transfer order dated 20.01.2010 is in violation of "MMTC Staff Promotion Policy, 1984" and as such the petitioner cannot be transferred there. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order of the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 15091/2009 wherein the transfer was done from Paradeep to Sanchi showroom, Mata Vaishno Devi Bhawan. The said High Court vide order dated 20.10.2009 has issued directions to reconsider the transfer of petitioner therein to any other region in terms of policy decision of the respondent. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein allegations of harassment are denied. Respondent has admitted that there is a "Staff Promotion Policy" as per which there will be no transfer in the staff cadre from one region to another except in case of vigilance proceedings or as desired by the outside agencies like the CBI. It is alleged that there is no violation of the aforesaid "Staff Promotion Policy" as is alleged and the place where the petitioner has been sent vide office order dated 20.01.2010 i.e. comes under the "Jhandewalan Regional Office" where the petitioner is presently working. It is contended that the "promotion policy" relied upon by the petitioner does not prohibit the transfer of the staff within t