http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM) N.E. TELECOM CIRCLE & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI RAJENDRA CH.  BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995

BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR  813            1995 SCC  (2) 532  JT 1995 (1)   440        1995 SCALE  (1)250

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: FAIZAN UDDIN, J.: 1.   Leave granted. 2.   Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard. 3.   The  short  question that arises for  consideration  in this  appeal is whether the transfer of a civilian  employee of  the Central Government serving in the States  and  Union Territories  of North Eastern region, to a station of  their choice as far as possible, is a condition applicable even to those  officers  and  employees who belong  to  that  region itself  and are appointed and posted at any  station  within that   region  by  virtue  of  the  office  memorandum   No. 20014/283-E.IV dated 14.12.1983, the relevant part of  which read as under:-               "The  need  for attracting and  retaining  the               services of competent officers for service  in               the North-Eastern Region comprising the states               of  Assam,  Meghalaya, Manipur,  Nagaland  and               Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal               Pradesh  and  Mizoram has  been  engaging  the               attention  of  the Government for  some  time.               The Government had appointed a Committee               442               under  the  Chairmanship  of  Secretary,   De-               partment of Personnel & Administrative Reforms               to   review   the  existing   allowances   and                             facilities  admissible  to  the  various  cat-               egories   of   civilian   Central   Government               employees  serving  in  this  region  and   to               suggest   suitable  improvements.   The   rec-               ommendations   of  the  committee  have   been               carefully considered by the Government and the               President is now pleased to decide as  follows               office :               (1)   Tenure ofposting/deputation               There  will be a fixed tenure of posting of  3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

             years  at a time for officers with service  of               10  years  or less and 2 years at a  time  for               officers  with more than 10 years of  service.               Periods of leave training etc. in excess of 15               days per year will be excluded in counting the               tenure  period  of  2/3  years.   Officers  on               completion  of  the fixed  tenure  of  service               mentioned above may be considered for  posting               to  a  station  of  their  choice  as  far  as               possible.               The  period  of  deputation  of  Om:   Central               Government  employees  to  the  states/  Union               Territories  of the North Eastern Region  will               generally be for 3 yews which can be  extended               in  exceptioned cases in exigencies of  public               services   as  well  as  when   the   employee               concerned  is  prepared to stay  longer.   The               admissible  deputation  allowance  will   also               continue  to  be  paid during  the  period  of               deputation so extended.               (ii)  --------               (iii) Special (Duty) Allowance               Central  Government   civilian  employees  who               have  All  India transfer  liability  will  be               granted a special (Duty) Allowance at the rate               of  25  per  cent of basic pay  subject  to  a               ceiling  of Rs.400/- per month on  posting  to               any station in the North Eastern Region.  Such               of those employees who are exempt from payment               of  income tax will however, not  be  eligible               for  this  special  (Duty)  Allowance  special               (Duty) Allowance will be in a addition to  any               special pay and/or deputation (Duty) Allowance               already being drawn subject to the  conditions               that   that  total  of  such  special   (Duty)               Allowance   plus  special   pay/P.M.   special               Allowance  like special  compensatory  (Remote               Locality) Allowance Construction Allowance and               project Allowance will be drawn separately." 4.   The  respondent  No.  1  was  originally  appointed  as Wireless  Operator in the department of Post & Telegraph  in the  year  1964  and  posted at Bandilla  in  the  State  of Arunachal  Pradesh  and  thereafter  he  has  been   working eversince in the North Eastern region of India and presently posted as Assistant Engineer at Dimapur.  The detail of  his postings  at various places in the North Eastern  region  is set out herein below. YEAR OFPOSTING PLACE OF P0STING    1.     1964     Bemdda as Wireless Opaator    2.     1965     Agartala as Wireless Operator    3.     1967     Lungleh (Mizoram) -do-    4.     1968     Guwahati -do-    5.     1969     Agartala -do- Supervisor    6.     1971     Aizawl As Engg. Supervisor    7.     1973     R.K. Pur                     (Udaipur Tripura State) -do-    8.     1978     Agartala   -do-    9.     1983     Two                    (Garo Hills,    Meghalaya) -do- 10.       1984     Agartala -do 11.       1.5.87 to             17.1.90    Agartala as SDO Telegraphs 12.       18.1.90 to             23.10.90   Shillong as ALE. 13.       20. 10.90 to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

           15.7.93    Tuensang as A-E. 14.       16.7.93             continued  Dimapur as A-E. 5.The Government of India with a view to attract and  retain competent offic- 443 ers for services in the North Eastern region issued the memo dated  14.12.1983 the relevant part of which  is  reproduced above  laying  down that "there will be a  fixed  tenure  of posting of three years at a place for officers with  service of ten years or less and of two years at a time for officers with  more  than ten years of  service........  Officers  on completion  of the fixed tenure of service mentioned  above, may  be considered for posting to a station of their  choice as far as possible".  On the basis of the aforesaid memo  of the Government of India the respondent No. 1 claimed posting at Agartala as the station of his choice contending that  he had  completed  service of two years tenure  period  in  the North Eastern region.  But the Chief General Manager,  North Eastern  Telecom  Circle, Shillong by order  dated  8.7.1993 transferred   the  respondent  No.  1  to  Dimapur.    Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of transfer the  respondent No.1   approached   the  Central   Administrative   Tribunal contending  that  he had served at  Tuensang  (Nagaland)  as Assistant  Engineer, Computer from 24.10.1990  to  15.7.1993 and  had  thus  completed tenure period of  two  years  and, therefore, on the basis of the Central Government memorandum referred to above had acquired the right of a choice posting and  as his choice station was Agartala he should be  posted there   and   not  at  Dimapur  (Nagaland).    The   Central Administrative   Tribunal,   Gauhati  Bench,   in   Original Application No. 268 of 1993 accepted the contention advanced on  behalf  of the respondent No. 1 and by its  order  dated 25.1.1994  held that the respondent No. 1 had  acquired  the right  of choice posting as he had completed tenure  posting in  hard  zone  i.e.  North  Eastern  region  and  he   was, therefore,  entitled to posting at  Agartala.   Consequently the Tribunal directed to transfer the respondent No. 1  from Dimapur  to  Agartala  against a vacant  post  of  Assistant Engineer, Telecommunication within 21 days of the receipt of the said order and if no vacant post is presently available, the respondent shall be transferred to Agartala in the  next available  vacancy.  It is this order of the Tribunal  which has been challenged in the present appeal. 6.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that it   is  clear  from  the  Central  Government  memo   dated 14.12.1983  that the consideration for posting at a  station of  choice is provided only for those officers who  come  to North  Eastern region to complete their tenure  posting  and the  said choice is not available to those officers who  are appointed and posted in the North Eastern region itself  and that even otherwise the posting at the station of choice  is not a mandatory condition.  We find much force in these sub- missions.  A bare reading of the memo dated 14.12.1983  will go to show that it is meant for attracting and retaining the services  of competent officers in the NorthEastern  region, from  other  parts  the country and  the  expression  tenure posting  will imply the posting of officers in  that  region from  outside the region who have been attracted from  other parts  of  the country and the region other than  the  North Eastern  region and not the persons belonging to  that  very region  where they are appointed and posted.  This was  also the view expressed by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay  Kumar  &  Ors.  [JT 1994  (6)  443].  The  point  for consideration in Vijay Kumar’s case (supra) was whether  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

respondents  of  that  case were entitled  to  special  duty allowance even though they are residents of North Eastern 444 region  merely  because  of the posts  to  which  they  were appointed  were  of "All India Transfer  Liability".   After considering  various memorandums of the  Central  Government including  the  one dated 14.12.1983 which  is  in  question before  us and after due consideration this Court  took  the view  that the said memorandums clearly indicated  that  the allowance  was  meant to attract persons outside  the  North Eastern  region  to  work  in  the  region  because  of  in- accessibility  and difficult terrain.  This view  was  taken particularly  because even the 1983 memorandum  referred  to above  stated  that  the need for  allowance  was  felt  for "attracting and retaining" the service of competent officers for  service  in North Eastern region.   Applying  the  same analogy  it can well be said that the 1983  memorandum  with regard  to  the choice posting after the tenure  posting  is available  only to persons bonging to the region other  than the  North Eastern region.  Admittedly the respondent No.  1 belongs to North Eastern region and Agartala which is in the State of Tripura is his home town.  There is also no dispute that  he was originally appointed and posted in that  region and the detailed chart given in para 3 above will go to show that  all  through he has been posted at places  within  the North Eastern region eversince his appointment and for  most part of his service career he was posted at Agartala.  It is evident from the chart showing the details of his places  of postings  that he remained at Agartala between 1965 to  1967 and  1969  to 197L He was again transferred  and  posted  at Agartala  in 1978 where he remained till 1983.  In  1984  he was again posted at Agartala.  Thereafter he remained posted at Agartala from 1.5.1987 to 17.1.1990 Thus for most of  the part of his service the  respondent No. 1 was posted at  his home town, Agartala. 7.   It  is needless to emphasis that a Government  employee or any servant of a Public Undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place.  It  cannot be  disputed that the respondent holds a  transferable  post and unless specifically provided in his service  conditions, he  has  no  choice in the matter  of  posting.   Since  the respondent  has  no legal or statutory right  to  claim  his posting   at   Agartala  and,  therefore,   there   was   no justification for the tribunal to set aside the respondent’s transfer to Dimapur. 8.   Apart  from the above facts the appellants have  stated in  the  memo of appeal which is supported by  an  affidavit filed  by  Shri P.C. Chaturvedi, Vigilance  Officer  of  the Office  of  Chief  General  Manager,  N.E.  Telecom  Circle, Shillong that during the last posting of respondent No. 1 at Agartala  from 1.5.1987 to 17.1.1990 a number of  complaints were reccived from the staff unions against him.  There  are also several complaints of various irregularities  committed by   the   respondent  No.1  which  are   being   separately investigated  by  the vigilance department and a copy  of  a complaint signed by 270 employees has been filed as Annexure ’B’  alongwith the memo of appeal.  In these facts and  cir- cumstances the posting of respondent No. 1 at Agartala would not  be  justifiable from the administrative point  of  view also.   The  transfer  of  a  public  servant  made  on  ad- ministrative  grounds  or in public interest should  not  be interfered  with  unless  there are  strong  and  compelling grounds  rendering  the  transfer  order  improper  and  un- justifiable.   In the present case we find no such  grounds. On the contrary, as discussed above, the respondent remained

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

at 445 Agartala  for  most  of  the  period.   In  the  facts   and circumstances stated above the claim of the respondent No. 1 for  choice posting cannot be accepted and for  that  reason the  impugned order of the tribunal could not be  sustained. In  the  result the appeal succeeds and is  hereby  allowed. The  impugned  order of the tribunal dated 25.IA994  is  set aside  and  the application filed by the  respondent  No.  1 before the tribunal is dismissed but without any order as to costs. 446