Government Employee Can't Refuse To Join New Place Of Posting While Contesting Transfer : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Court opined that when a person works for the government, the incidence of transfer becomes inherent in the terms of service unless it is specifically barred. As such, once relieved from a particular place of posting, the employee has no right to remain absent or to refute to the new place of posting. He can join the new posting place and continue contesting the transfer.

 "..an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer."

Two primary concerns were flagged by the Court relating to such absenteeism of employees:

(i) Transfers are made by authorities to fill vacancies in new places of posting. If transferred employees don't join, optimal service at full capacity can't be provided;

(ii) While the challenge to transfer is underway, authorities would have to employ other individuals to fill the vacancies. This would amount to paying twice for the same job - firstly, to the individual who is actually performing the job, and secondly, to the transferred employee who is unauthorizedly absent.

"Such a situation would result in nothing but burning a hole in the pocket of public exchequer, lead to the excessive financial burden on the Government institutions, and would fundamentally jeopardize public interest", the Court said.

Briefly put, the Court was dealing with the case of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and 6 private respondents, who initially challenged their transfer orders by the University before the Madras High Court. A Single Judge allowed the respondents' pleas and quashed the transfer orders. Against the same, the appellant-University filed writ appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant-university's appeals. Aggrieved by the same, it approached the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's initial orders, the private respondents joined their new places of posting. However, an issue remained with regard to regularization for the period during which they did not join services despite transfer.

With regard to 4 respondents, who had interim orders in their favor from the High Court, the appellant-University conceded that it was not opposed to regularization and payment of arrears.

So far as the other 2 respondents, the Court noted that without any interim order in their favor, they remained unauthorizedly absent from service during the pendency of their petitions before the Single Judge of the High Court. As such, they could not be regularized and/or paid arrears for the said period. However, they were entitled to regularization and payment of salaries for the period after the Single Judge pronounced the decision quashing the transfer orders.

"Despite there being no interim order in their favour, respondent nos. 4 and 7 continued to remain absent after being relieved from their original place of posting. As such, this Court is not inclined to extend any benefit of salary for the period of unauthorised absence. However, as the transfer order was quashed by the learned Single Judge, their service periods shall continue to be treated in continuity, and they would be entitled to whatever other benefits accrued to them due to this continuity, but no salary for the said period of unauthorised absence."

Ultimately, the appeals were allowed, with a direction to the appellant-University to clear arrears of the private respondents, subject to the condition that two respondents (who did not have interim orders in their favour) were not to be paid for the period of unauthorized absence.