Holding

The Court held that transfers are permissible under the 19 September 1986 instructions but must be preceded by obtaining the employees' individual options; otherwise, the transfer order cannot be enforced.

Summary

The Hyderabad Telecom District was merged with the Andhra Pradesh Telecom Circle in 1986, and a common seniority list was issued for all officials. The Chief General Manager rotated Junior Telecom Officers, transferring the respondents from Hyderabad to the Telangana District. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the transfers, holding that the 19 September 1986 Government instructions required consideration of individual employee options and that transfers could not be made without consent. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the transfer orders were valid in principle but were unenforceable because the authorities had not obtained the respondents' options as mandated. Consequently, the Court modified the Tribunal’s order, directing that any future transfer to difficult areas must be preceded by taking individual options. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the transfer of Junior Telecom Officers from the merged Hyderabad Telecom District to other districts within the Andhra Pradesh Telecom Circle is permissible without the employees' consent under the Government of India instructions dated 19 September 1986.
Whether the appointment clause limiting service to the Hyderabad Telephone District restricts transfers after the reorganisation of telecom circles.
Whether the common gradation list issued post‑reorganisation overrides any prior limitation on transfer.
Whether failure to consider individual employee options renders a transfer order void.

Subjects

Telecom servicetransfer of personnelreorganisation of telecom circlesgovernment instructionsseniority listadministrative lawservice lawemployee consentspecial circumstances

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA A
v.
D. MOHAN AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 1, 1995
B
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]

Se1vice Law-Telecom Se1vice-Tramfer Orders-Junior Telecom Of
--,...-
ficers -Reorganisation or Telecom circles-Merger of Hyderabad Telecom
Dist1ict with A.P. Telecom Circle-Decision to rotate JTOs and Circle Cadre
Officials-Orders of trans/er from Hyderabad Telecom District to Telangana c
Distlict of Andhra Pradesh-Orders to be passed after considering individual
options of employees in terms of Govt. of India instructions.

On reorganisation of the Telecom Circles, the Hyderabad Telecom
District was merged with the A.P. Telecom Circle and brought under the D
administrative control of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P. The
Chief General Manager decided to rotate Junior Telecom Officers and
other Circle Cadre Officials and post substitutes in their place from other
districts with a view to maintain service efficiently and to help the staff
who served in ditTrcult areas of Telangana so as to remove the frustration
and to accommodate them at their places of choice. The respondents, E
working as Junior Engineers in the Telephone District, Hyderabad were
transferred from Hyderabad Telecom District to the Telangana District of
Andhra Pradesh Telecom Circle. The respondents challenged the transfers
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the
orders holding that having regard to the instructions dated 19.9.1986 F
issued at the time of reorganisation and on consideration of the transfer
liability as per orders of appointment of the respondents they could only
be transferred within the erstwhile Hyderabad Telephone District and,
therefore, even after reorganisation they could not be transferred to other
areas in Andhra Pradesh Circle without their consent so long as they
worked in the category in which they had been recruited. This appeal had G
been filed challenging the judgment of the Tribunal.

J. The appellants submitted that as per reorganisation scheme the
seniority lists of all the circle cadre officials, including that of Junior
Telecom Officers were merged together and a common gradation list of H
747
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS, (1995) 1 S.C.R."

A entire A.P. Circle including those of erstwhile Hyderabad Tt;lecom District
was issued by the Chief General Manager and the Common gradation list ....._~
so prepared formed the basis for promotion and transfers, etc. It was
submitted that since the respondents held a transferable post and, there-
fore, they could not be said to have any vested right to remain posted at
one place or the order and they were liable to be transferred according to
B the ·administrative exigencies. The appellants stated that the Chief General
Manager decided to rotate the JTOs every two years and post substitutes
in their place from other districts with a view to maintain service efficiently
and to help the staff who had served in difficult areas and, therefore, in
view of those facts and. circumstances the Tribunal should not have inter-
C ferred with the order of transfer which was made on administrative
grounds.

The respondent employees countered by submitting that all the
respondents were working in Telecom District, Hyderabad since their
D recruitment to the service when the Telecom Department of Hyderabad
was a separate and independent unit till the reorganisation of Telecom
Circles. Soµie of them came on voluntary transfer to the Telecom District
in which they had been recruited. It was, therefore, urged, that since they
had suffered forfeiture of their seniority and having liability to serve only
in Telecom District, Hyderabad, they were not liable to be transferred
E outside the said District even after reorganisation except under Special
circumstances when they could be transferr~d to any part of India.

Allowing the appeal partly, the Court

F HELD : 1.1. The erstwhile Hyderabad Telephone District was merged
with the A.P. Telecom Circle and brought under the administrative control
of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P. After the reorganisation of
the circles with effect from 1.11.1986. It had also not been disputed that
after the reorganisation of the circles the seniority lists of all the circle
cadre officials including that of the Junior Telecom Officers were merged
G and a common gradation list of A.P. Circle including those of the erstwhile
Hyderabad Telecom District was issued by the Chief General Manager,
Telecom A.P., Hyderabad. As per order dated 14.3.1992 the said gradation
list was circulated to all concerned including the respondents but none of
them put forth any objection to the sa~e. The said gradation list had,
H therefore, assumed finality. The said gradation list formed the basis for
U.0.1. v. D. MOHAN [FAIZAN UDDIN, J.] 749

promotion and transfer. In these facts and circumstances it could not be A
contended that since the respondents were recruited for the service in the
Telecom District, Hyderabad or had come on voluntary transfer to the
said district foregoing their seniority in the Telecom District in which they
had been recruited, they could not be transferred outside the Telecom
District, Hyderabad simply because one of the terms of their appointment
order provided that the appointment carried with it the liability to serve B
in any part of Hyderabad Telephone District. [752-F-H, 753-A-B)

· 1.2 Govt. of India instructions dated 19.9.1986 provide that while
transferring the Staff of the erstwhile Telephone-' District who were
recruited to the specific units it may be confined only to those units as far C
as possible taking into consideration individual options when a member
of the staff at the erstwhile Telephone District is to be transferred to other ·
areas. Thus while the instruction contained in paragraph 3 of Annexure 2
provided for the transfer liability of the existing staff of the erstwhile
Telephone District, over the entire Secondary Switching area, it also at the
same time provided for taking into consideration individual options. That D
being so, the Chief General Manager, Telecom Circle, A.P. before passing
the order of transfer, ought to have obtained option from those employees
and officers who belonged to the erstwhile Telephone District who were
recruited to the specific units and after considering their individual op·
tions should have passed the order of transfer, so as to avoid any possible E
hardship to them. In the present case admittedly no options were taken
from the respondents and for this reason alone the transfer order could
not be enforced. (754-F-H, 755·A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1250 of
1995~ · F
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.93 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 765 of 1993.

C.S. Vaidyanathan, Krishan Mahajan, and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the
Appellants. G
N. Ambrish and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents.

· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAIZAN UDDIN, J, Leave granted.
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A 1. In this appeal by special leaye, the appellants have challenged the
order dated 20.8.1993 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad in Original Application No. 765/1993 file~
by the sixteen resp~mdents herein questioning the order dated 26.5.1993
whereby they were transferred from Hyderabad Telecom District to the
B Telangana District of Andhra Pradesh Telecom Service.

2. The respondents herein were working as Junior Engineers in the
Telephoi:ie district, Hyderabad as on 1.11.1986 under the administrative
Control of the General Manager, Telephone District, Hyderabad. The
respondents were either recruited in one Telephone District, Hyderabad
C or they were transferred under Rule 38 from other districts and had joined
Hyderabad district on bottom seniority. Originally the telephone district,
Hyderabad was a separate independent unit by itself and the recruitment,
transfers and postings of the entire staff including the Junior Engineers
were confined to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secundrabad which
D . were under the jurisdiction and administrative control, of General
Manger, Telephone District, Hyderabad.

3. The reorgani~ation of the Telecom Circles tonk place on 1.11.1986.
Before the reorganisation on 1.11.1986 the areas other than Hyderabad
Telephone District in Andhra Pradesh were under the control of General
E Manager, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Telecom. The Ministry of Communica-
tions evolved National Switching Plan, in pursuance of which a decision
was taken for reorganising Telecom Circles on the basis of Secondary
Switching Areas (S.S.A) as basic units. Consequently instructions were
issued by the Ministry of Communications by letter No. 1.16/82-TE.1 dated
F 19.8.1985 according to which Hyderabad Telephone District took over the
respective Secondary Area in which it was located. As per the aforesaid
instructions the erstwhile Hyderabad Telecom District was merged with
the AP. Telecom Circle and brought under the administrative control of
the Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P.

G 4. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, AP. Circle decided to
rotate JTOs and other Circle Cadre Officials and post substitutes in their
place from other districts with a view to maintain service efficiency and to
help the staff who served in difficult areas of Telangana so as to remove
the frustration and to accommodate them at their places of choice. With
H this object in mind the respondents were transferred from Hyderabad
U.0.1. v. D. MOHAN [FAIZAN UDDIN, J.] 751
I ! .
Telecom District to Telanga.na District of Andhra Pradesh Telecom Circle. A
Being aggrieved by the said transfers the respondents approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Tribunal took the
view that having regard to the instructions dated 19.9.1986 issued at the
time of reorganisation and on consideration of the transfer liability as per
orders of appointment of the respondents they can only be transferred B
within the erstwhile Hyderabad Telephone District and, therefore, even
after reorganisation the respondents could not be transferred to other
areas in Andhra Pradesh Circle without their consent so long as they
worked in the category in which they have been recruited. On these
findings the Tribunal allowed the application of the respondents and set
aside the order of their transfer dated 26.5.1993 except that of respondent C
No. 13 whose transfer was cancelled during pendency of proceedings
before the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned
order of the Tribunal setting aside the order. transferring the respondents D
to various places shown against their names in the said \.
order of transfer,
submitted that after the reorganisation of Telecom Circles with effect from
1.11.1986 and as per the instructions of the Government of India, Ministry
of Communication dated 19.9.1986 the erstwhile Hyderabad Telephone
District was merged with the AP. Telecom Circle and brought under the
administrative control of the Chief General Manager, Teleco~ AP. He E
further submitted that as per reorganisation scheme the seniority lists of
all the circle cadre officials, including that of Junior Telecom Officers were
merged together and a common gradation list (Junior Telecom Officers)
of entire AP. Circle including those of erstwhile Hyderabad Telecom
District was issued by the Chief General Manager, Telecom, AP. vide p
letter dated 14.8.1992 and the common gradation list so prepared forms
the basis for promotion and transfers, etc. It was submitted that since the
respondents hold a transferable post and, therefore, they cannot be said to
have any vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and they
are liable to be transferred according to the administrative exigencies. He
also submitted that the Junior Telecom Officers belonging to other than G
Telangana area are working taken in those areas under difficult conditions
and at personal inconveniences and, therefore, the Chief General Manager,
Telecom, AP. Circle decided to rotate the Junior Telecom Officers and
other circle cadre officials every two years and post substitutes in their
place from other districts with a view to maintain ~nil:ce efficiency and to H
752' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A help the staff who had served in difficult areas and, therefore, in view of
these facts -and circumstances the Tribunal-should. not h~ve interfered in
th~;9rdrr of transfer which was made on administrative grounds.

6. As against the aforementioned submissions made by the Counsel
for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents-employees
B countered' by submitting that 'all the respondents .have been working in
Telecom District, Hyderabad under administrative control of Chief
General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad since their recruitment to
the service when the Telecom Department of Hyderabad was a separate
and independent unit till the reorganisation of Telecom Circles which took
C place on{ll.1986. He submitted that as the Telecom District, Hyderabad
was separate at\d independent unit, the recruitment, transfers and postings
of the officials including the respondents were confined only to the said
Telecom District, Hyderabad comprising of the twin cities of Hyderabad
and Secundrabad and not outside the said Telecom District. It was further
D submitted that the respondents were either recruited for service in the ~
Telecom District, Hyderabad or some of them came on voluntary transfer --<
to the Telecom Di~~rict in which they had been recruited. It was, therefore,
urged that since th~y had suffered forefeiture of their seniority and having
liability to serve only in Telecom District, Hyderab~d they are not liable to
be transferred outside the said District even after reorganisation except
E under special circumstances when they could be transferred to any part of
India.

7. We have given serious consideration to the rival contentions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that
F the erstwhile Hyderabad Telephone District was merged with the AP.
Telecom Circle and brought under the administrative control of the Chief
General Manager, Telecom, A.P. after the reorganisation of the circles
with effect from 1.11.1986. It has also not been disputed that after the
1--
reorganisation of the circles as aforesaid the seniority lists of all the circle
cadre officials including that of the Junior Telecom Officers were merged
G and a common gradation list of AP. Circle including those of the· erstwhile
Hyderabad Telecom District was issued by the Chief General Manager,
Telecom AP., Hyderabad. As per order dated_14.8.1992 the said gradation
list was circulated to all concerned including the respondents out none of
them purforth any objection to the same. The said gradation list has,
H therefore, assume finality; The said gradation list formed the cases for
U.0.1. v. D. MOHAN [FAIZAN UDDIN, J.] 753
I

promotion and transfer. In these facts and circumstances it could not be A
contended that· since the respondents were recruited for the 1}etwce in the
Tel~com District, Hyderabad or had come on voluntary transfer' to the said
district foregoing their seniority in the Telecom District in which they had
been recruited, they could not be transferred outside the Telecom District,
Hyderabad, simply because one of the terms of their appointment order
provided that the appointment cauied with it the liability to serve in any B.
part of Hyderabad Telephone District. For proper appreciation the said
terms of appointment as contained in clause 3 (IV) of the appointment
order with is annexed as Annexure R-1 in this appeal is reproduced below
which reads as under :
c
"The appointment carries with it the liability to serve in any part
of Hyderabad Telephone District and in special circumstances in
any part of India". (emphasis supplied)

8. After the merger of Telecom District Hyderabad with effeCt from
1.111.1986 with AP. Circle the r~spondents became liable to be transferred · D
within that circle. Even the afor~said term of appointment will go to show
that their liability to serve in any part of the original Hyderabad Telephone
District carries with it the liability to serve in any part of India in the special ·
circumstances which is clear from the words 'in special circumstances in
any part of India". After the reorganisation of circles and merger of E
Telecom District Hyderabad with AP. Circle as said earlier, the seniority
lists of all the circle cadre officials including that of the Junior Telecom
Officers (JTOs) were merged and a common gradation list of AP. circle
including those of erstwhile Hyderabad Telecom District was prepared and
issued by the Chief General Managei, Telecom AP., Hyderabad which
forms the basis for promotion, postings and transfer. It is, therefore, by F
itself an instance of one of the special circumstances by reason of which
the respondents became liable to be transferred to any place within the
AP. Circle.

9. It would here be relevant to refer to the Government of India G
instructions dated 19.9.1986. Paragi-aph 3 of Annexure 2 attached to the
said instructions reads thus :

Recruitment-Transfers and Postings;

.,.. Recruitment for all cadres for the entire Secondary Area will be H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A done by the Telecom District G.M./District Manager/DistriLl En-
gineer, according to schedule ·of powers and, all the new recruits
including departmental candidates will have transfer liability ovl!r
;,
the whole secondary area. The existing staff of the erstwhile
Telephone District AND THE Telegraph Engineering Divisions
will also have transfer liability over the entire Secondary.Switching
B Area, but to avoid hardship to the individuals, such liability for those
recmited already to the specific units may be confined only to those
units as far as possible taking into consideration individual options.
(Emphasis supplied).

C 10. As stated earlier learned Counsel appearing for the appellant had
contended
1
that the Junior Telecom Officers belonging to other than Telan-
gana areas were working in Telangana area under difficult conditions and
at personal inconveniences and it was for this reason that the Chief General
Manager, Telecom AP. Circle took decision to rotate the Junior Telecom
. D Officers and other circle cadre officials every two years and post substitutes
in their places from other districts with a view to maintain service efficiency
and to held the staff who served in difficult areas. Since the respondents
were transferred to Telangana area by order dated 26.5.1993 which has
been set aside by the Tribunal and according to the appellants themselves
Telangana area is a dif.ficult area and it appears that it is for this reason
E that the respondents felt aggrieved by the transfer order. It is for the same
reason that paragraph 3 reproduced above has been introduced in An-
nexure 2 of the Government instructions which provides that while trans-
ferring the· staff of the erstwhile Telephone District who were recruited to
the specific units may by confined only to those units as far as possible
F taking into consideration individual options when a member of the staff of
the erstwhile telephone District is to be transferred to other areas. Thus,
while the instruction contained in paragraph 3 of Annexure 2 provide for
the transfer liability of the existing staff of the erstwhile Telephone District,
over the entire Secondary Switching area, it also at the same time provides
for taking into consideration individual options. That being so, the Chief
G General Manager Telecom Circle AP. before passing the order of Trans-
fer, ought to have obtained options from those employees and Officers
who belonged to the erstwhile Telephone District who were recruited to
the specific units and after considering their individual options should have
passed the order of transfer, so as to avoid any possible hardship to them.
H In the present case admittedly no options were taken from the respondents
I
:-~-:~---~. \'\-"·--
'
''

and for this reason alone the iransfer order cannot be enforce<.!. But this A·
aspect appears to have escaped the _notice of the tribunal..

11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The \mpugned order
of the tribunal is modified to the extent that in the event the respondents
or any of them are proposed to be transferred to the difficult Telangana
Areas, the appellants shall obtain options from them and pass the order of , B
their. transfer afresh after considering their individual options. In the facts
and circumstances of this case the parties are left to bear their. own costs
of this appeal · ·\ ·

AG. • ' Appeal
. .
allowed partly.
- -- . ---

•