Holding

The memorandum’s choice‑posting provision is limited to officers recruited from outside the North‑Eastern region, so the respondent had no right to a choice posting and the transfer order stands.

Summary

The Government of India issued an Office Memorandum on 14‑December‑1983 to attract officers from outside the North‑Eastern (NE) region by offering a fixed tenure of posting and, after its completion, a choice of posting. R.C. Bhattacharjee, a civilian employee who had been appointed and served entirely within the NE region, claimed that after completing his tenure he was entitled to a choice posting at Agartala, his hometown. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that he had such a right and ordered his transfer to Agartala. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the memorandum’s choice‑posting provision applied to officers belonging to the NE region and whether a government employee has a statutory right to a particular posting. The Court held that the memorandum was intended only for officers recruited from outside the NE region; consequently, no legal right to a choice posting existed for Bhattacharjee, and the transfer on administrative grounds could not be interfered with, especially in view of complaints against him. The Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the 1983 Office Memorandum's provision of a choice posting after tenure applies to officers who belong to the North‑Eastern region and are posted within it.
Whether a government employee has a legal right to a choice of posting under the memorandum.
Whether the court can interfere with a transfer order made on administrative grounds.

Subjects

choice postingtenure postingNorth Eastern regioncivil servant transferadministrative discretionservice lawCentral Administrative Tribunalgovernment employee rights

Judgment

F-
l

r
A CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM) 1.

N.E. TELECOM CIRCLE AND ANR.
v.
SH. RAJENDRA CH. BHATTACHARJEE AND ORS.

JANUARY 18, 1995
B
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]

Service Law-Office Memorandum No. 20014/283-E, W dated 14-12-
1983, issued by Government of Jndia-:-Choice posting after tenure posting in
C North Eastern region-Benefit of-Whether available__J_o employees who
belong to that region-Held, No-1983 memorandum applicable only to per-
sons belonging to region other than North Eastern region.

Service Law-Transfer on administrative grounds-Powers of court to
D inteifere with.

The Government of India with a view to attract and retain competent
officers for services in the North Eastern region issued an Office
Memorandum No. 20014/283-E, IV dated 14-12-1983 laying down that there
will be a fixed tenure posting of three years at a place for officers with
E service of ten years or less and of two years at a time for officers with more
than ten years of service and officers on completion of the fixed tenure of
- service, might be considered for posting to a station of their choice. The
respondent No. 1 belonging to North Eastern region, was originally ap-
pointed as Wireless Operator in the department of Post & Telegraph in
F the year 1964 and posted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and thereafter
he had been working eversince in the North Eastern ·region of India. On
the basis of the memo of the Government of India, he 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. However,
he was transferred to Nagaland. The respondent challe~ged the order of
G transfer contending that he had completed tenure period and, therefore,
on the basis of the Central Government memorandum had acquired the
right of a choice posting and as his choice station was Agartala he ~hould
be posted there. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepting the case
of the respondent directed the Govt. to transfer the respondent from
H Nagaland to Agartala. Hence this appeal.
360
N.E. TELECOM CIRCLE v. R.C. BHATIACHARJEE 361

The appellant contended that by virtue of the Central Governmen~ A
memo dated 14~12-1983, the consideration for posting at a station of choice
was provided only for those officers who came to North Eastern region to
complete their tenure posting and the said choice was not available to
those officers who were appointed and posted in the North Eastern region
Itself and that even otherwise the posting at the station of choice was not
mandatory condition. B

The question raised for consideration was ·whether the transfer of a
civilian employee of the Cehtral Government ·service in the States and
Union Territories of North Eastern region, to a station of their choice, was
a condition applicable even to those officers and employees who belonged C
to that region itself and were posted and appointed at any station within
that region by virtue of the office memorandum dated 14-12-1983.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1. Office memo dated 14-12-1983 issued by the Government D
of India is meant for attracting and retaining the. service of competent
officers in the North Eastern region, from other parts of 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 E
the person belonging to that very region where they are appointed and
posted. Therefore, the 1983 memorandum with regard to the choice posting
after the tenure posting is available only to persons belonging to the region
other then the North Eastern region. [365-H, 366-A·B-E]

Union of India and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., JT (1994) 6 443, F
referred to.

1.2. A Government employees or any servant of a Public Undertaking
has no legal right to insist for being posted at any parti,cular place. In the
instant case, the respondent was holding a transferable post and unless
specifically provided in his service conditions, he had no choice in the G
matter of posting. [366-H, 367-A]

1.3. The transfer of a public servant on administrative grounds or
in public interest should not be interferred with unless there are strong
and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and un.:- H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A justifiable. In this case, during the last posti~g of respondent No. 1 a.t
Agartala, a number of complaints were received from the staff unions
against him. There were also several complaints of various irregularities
committed by the respondent No. 1. In these facts and circumstances the
posting of respondent No.1 at Agartala was not justifiable from the ad-
B ministrative point of view also. [367-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 834 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order, dated 25.1.94 of the Central Ad-
C ministrative Tribunal, Guwahati in O.A. No. 268 of 1993.
Raju Ramachandran, Ashok Mathur and Sukumar Patt Joshi for the
Appellants.

Pravir Choudhary for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard.
E 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
F appointed and posted at any station within that region by virtue of the
office memorandum No: 220014/283-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
G 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 the some time.
The Government had appointed a Committee under the Chair-
manship of Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative
H Reforms, to review the existing allowances and facilities admissible
1
N.E. TELECOM CIRCLEv. R.C. BHATIACHARJEE (FAIZAN UDDIN, J.) 363

to the various categories of civilian Central Government emph?yees A
~
serving in this region and to suggest suitable improvements. The
recommendations of the committee have been carefully considered
by the Government and the President is now pleased to decide as
-~
follows office :

(1) Tenure of posting/deputation B

There will be a fixed tenure of posting of 3 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
c
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 the Central Government
~'t
employees to the states/Union Territories of the North Eastern D
region will generally be for 3 years which can be extended in
exceptional 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.
E
(ii) .........................

(iii) Special (Duty) Allowance

• '· Central Government civilian employees who have All India
transfer liability will be granted a special (Duty) Allowance at the
F
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 G
.> _,, 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 arui Project
Allowance will be drawn separately." H
r
\

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.ljl.

A 4. The respo~dent ~o. 1 was originally appointed as Wireless
Operator in toc. <,lepartment ·of Post & Telegraph in the year 1964 and -~

posted at Bindilla ·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.
B
YEAR OF POSTING PLACE OF POSTING

1. 1964 Bemdila as Wireless Operator •).
"" ,
2. 1965 Agartala as Wireless Operator
c
3. 1967 Lungleh (Mizoram) -do-

4. 1968 Guwahati -do-

5. 1969 Agartala -do- Supervisor
D
~-
6. 1971 Aizawal As Engg. Supervisor

7. 1973 R.K. Pur
(Udaipur Tripura State) -do-

E 8. 1978 Agartala -do-

9. 1983 Tura
(Garo Holls, Meghalaya) -do-

10. 1984 Agartala -do- ,/
F ft
11. 1.5.87 to 17.1.90 Agartala as SDO Telegraphs

12. 18.1.90 to 23.10.90 Shilong as A.E.
,
13. 24.10.90 to 15.7.93 Tuensang as A.E. ~

G 14. 16.7.93 - continued . Dimapur as A.E.

5. The Government of India with a view to attract and retain com- /-'
petent officers for services in the North Eastern region issued the memo
.....
dated 14.12.1983 the relevant part of which is reproduced above laying
H down that "There will be a fixed tenure of posting of three years at a place
N.E. TELECOM CIRCLE v. R.C. BHATIACHARJEE (FAIZAN UDDIN. J.) 365

for officers with service of ten years or less and of two years at a time for A
officers with more than ten years of service ...... Officers on completion of
4
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 ~wo years tenure period in the North Eastern region. But the
B
Chief General Manager, North Eastern telecom Circle, Shillong by order
dated 8.7.1993 transferred the respondent No. 1 to Dimapur. Being ag-
l grieved by the aforesaid order of transfer the respondent No. 1 ap-
proached the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that he had
served at Tuensang (Nagaland) as Assistant Engineer, Computer from c
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
D
~. 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 E
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. F
••
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that it is
clear from the Central Government memo dated 14.12.1983 that the con-

- sideration 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 offices who are appointed and G
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 submissions. 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 North-Eastern region, from other parts the H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A 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., T (1994) (6) 443. The point for
B consideration in Vijay Kumar's case (supra) was whether the respondents
of that case were entitled to special duty allowance even though they are
residents of North Eastern region merely because of the posts to which
they were appointed were of "All India Transfer Liability". After consider-
ing various memorandums of the Central Government including the one
C dated 14.12.1983 which is in question before, us and after due consideration
this Court took the view that the said memorandum clearly indicated that
the allowance was meant to attract person outside the North Eastern
region to work in the region because of inaccessibility and difficult terrain.
This view was taken particularly because even the 1983 memorandum
D referred to above stated that the need for allowance was felt for "attracting
and retaining" the service of competent officers for service in North East-
ern 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 person belonging to the region other than the North
Eastern region. Admittedly the respondent No. 1 belongs to North Eastern
E 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
F posted at Agartala. It is evident from the chart showing the details of his
places of postings that he remained at Agartala between 1963 to 1967 and
1969 to 1971. 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
G 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
H transferrable post and unless-s'pecifically provided in his service conditions,
N.E. TELECOM CIRCLEv. R.C. BHATIACHARJEE[FAIZAN UDDIN,J.) 367

he has no choice in the matter of posting. Since the respondent has no legal A
~ 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, B
Vigilance Officer of the Office of Chief General Manager, N.E. Telecom
} Circle, Shilong that during the last posting of respondent No. 1 at Agartala
~-
from 1.5.1987 to 17.1.1990 a number of complaints were received from the
staff unions against him. There are also several complaints of various
irregularities committed by the respondent No. 1 which are being separate•
ly investigated by the vigilance department and a copy of a complaint
c
signed by 270 employees has been filed as Annexure 'B' alongwith the
memo of appeal. In these facts and circumstances the posting of respon-
dent No. 1 at Agartala would not be justifiable from the administrative
point of view also. The transfer of a public servant made on administrative
..,_ grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are D
strong and coriipelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and
unjustifiable. In the present case we find no such grounds. On the contrary,
as discussed above, the respondent remained at 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 E
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 25.1.1994 is set aside and the application filed by the
respondent No. 1 before the tribunal is dismissed but without any order as
,,,.. \.,
to costs.
F
A.G. Appeal allowed.

-