Supreme Court overturns High Court order on employee transfer after retirement: State of Bihar vs. Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee can be transferred to another state after reaching superannuation in the original state, based on a prior transfer order. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: State of Bihar & Ors vs. Dr Chaitraya Kumar Singh & Ors. Judgment Date: 19 July 2019

Date of the Judgment: 19 July 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 724
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can an employee claim a transfer to another state after already retiring in their current state, simply based on a previously issued transfer order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court decision that favored such a transfer. The case involved an employee who, despite a transfer order, continued working in his original state and retired there, later seeking to enforce the transfer for a higher retirement age benefit.

Case Background

The first respondent, Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, was initially appointed as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the erstwhile State of Bihar on 26 May 1989. Following the Bihar Re-organisation Act on 15 November 2000, the state was divided into Bihar and Jharkhand. Employees were given the option to choose their preferred state. Dr. Singh initially opted for Bihar.

Later, on 9 February 2007, the Union government allocated Dr. Singh to the State of Jharkhand. Consequently, the Government of Bihar issued a notification on 27 February 2007, requiring him to join Jharkhand. He joined on 22 March 2007 and was posted in District Simdega.

On 11 January 2010, Dr. Singh applied for re-allocation to Bihar. Both states agreed, and on 30 July 2010, he was allocated to Bihar. The Home Department of Bihar issued formal orders on 6 September 2010, allocating his services to Bihar. Despite this, Dr. Singh was not relieved by Jharkhand to join Bihar.

Dr. Singh continued to work in Jharkhand and retired on 30 April 2017, at the age of 60. The retirement age in Bihar is 67. Shortly before retiring, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand seeking to be relieved to join Bihar based on the 2010 order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Jharkhand initially ruled in favor of Dr. Singh, directing the State of Bihar to accept him as an employee on transfer from Jharkhand. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal. The State of Bihar then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the Bihar Re-organisation Act, which led to the creation of the states of Bihar and Jharkhand. It also mentions guidelines issued by the Union government on 8 June 2006, which allowed for the transfer of employees between the two states with mutual consent, even after final allocations. The core issue revolves around the interpretation and enforcement of the transfer order issued by the Bihar government on 6 September 2010.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Bihar):

• The State of Bihar argued that while Dr. Singh was allocated to Bihar on 6 September 2010 with mutual consent, he continued to work in Jharkhand until his retirement in 2017.
• They contended that no vacancy exists in Bihar to absorb Dr. Singh now.
• The State argued that Dr. Singh only initiated legal proceedings to enforce the 2010 order just before his retirement in Jharkhand.
• They also highlighted that Dr. Singh was informed on 12 October 2015 that his application to join Bihar could not be accepted due to lack of vacancies.
• The State of Bihar submitted that Dr. Singh is attempting to move to Bihar to benefit from a higher retirement age after retiring in Jharkhand.

Respondent (Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh):

• Dr. Singh argued that the 6 September 2010 notification allocating him to Bihar was never withdrawn.
• He submitted that he made efforts to join the service in Bihar and sought to be relieved by Jharkhand.
• Since he was not relieved by Jharkhand, he had no option but to continue in service there.
• Dr. Singh contended that as long as the allocation order to Bihar was valid, he should receive its benefits, even after reaching superannuation in Jharkhand.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the central issue was whether the High Court was correct in directing the State of Bihar to absorb Dr. Singh after he had retired in Jharkhand, based on the 2010 transfer order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any prior case laws or legal provisions other than the Bihar Re-organisation Act and the Union government guidelines of 8 June 2006. The court focused on the factual matrix of the case and the conduct of the respondent.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Bihar Re-organisation Act was the basis for the division of the states and the need for employee allocation.
• The Union government guidelines of 8 June 2006 were the basis for the transfer of employees between the states with mutual consent. The Court noted that the respondent was allocated to Bihar under these guidelines, but found that the respondent did not pursue his legal remedies in a timely manner.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the conduct of Dr. Singh. The Court noted that despite the 2010 transfer order, Dr. Singh did not take timely steps to ensure he was relieved by the State of Jharkhand. He continued to work in Jharkhand for seven years and retired there, and only then sought to enforce the transfer order. The Court also considered the fact that the State of Bihar stated it had no vacancies. The Court emphasized that Dr. Singh was responsible for not pursuing his legal remedies in a timely manner.

The Court’s reasoning was that:

• Dr. Singh did not pursue his legal remedies when he was not relieved by the State of Jharkhand.
• He continued to work in Jharkhand for seven years and retired there.
• The State of Bihar stated that it had no vacancies to absorb him.

The Supreme Court stated, “The first respondent must, take the blame for not having pursued remedies available to him under the law to ensure that the State of Jharkhand issued an order relieving him so as to join the State of Bihar.”

The Court also noted, “Having now attained the age of superannuation in the State of Jharkhand, the State to which he was originally assigned and where despite the order of re-allocation the respondent worked for seven years, it would be manifestly inappropriate to direct that he should be absorbed by the State of Bihar.”

Furthermore, the Court observed, “the respondent did not take steps to enforce his rights under the order dated 6 September 2010 even after the State of Bihar informed him on 12 October 2015 that it was unable to accept his services.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Employees must take timely action to enforce transfer orders.
• A transfer order does not guarantee a transfer after retirement in the original state, especially if the employee did not pursue their remedies in a timely manner.
• Courts may not enforce transfer orders if a significant delay has occurred, and there are no vacancies in the destination state.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated 5 November 2018. No further directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee cannot claim a transfer to another state after reaching superannuation in the original state, based solely on a prior transfer order, especially if the employee did not pursue their legal remedies in a timely manner. This clarifies that a transfer order must be acted upon promptly and cannot be used as a basis for transfer after retirement in the initial state.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling that Dr. Singh could not be transferred to Bihar after retiring in Jharkhand. The Court emphasized that Dr. Singh’s inaction in pursuing his legal remedies in a timely manner, along with the lack of vacancies in Bihar, made the High Court’s order inappropriate. This judgment clarifies that a transfer order must be acted upon promptly and cannot be used as a basis for transfer after retirement.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Transfer of Employees

Child Category: Retirement Benefits

Parent Category: Bihar Re-organisation Act

Child Category: Allocation of Employees

FAQ

Q: Can I be transferred to another state after I have retired from my current state?
A: Generally, no. The Supreme Court has ruled that if you retire from your current state, you cannot claim a transfer to another state based on a prior transfer order, especially if you did not take timely steps to be relieved from your original state.

Q: What should I do if I have a transfer order but my current state is not relieving me?
A: You should pursue your legal remedies promptly. Do not wait until you are close to retirement. If you delay, courts may not enforce the transfer order.

Q: Does a transfer order guarantee my transfer even if there are no vacancies in the new state?
A: No. The Supreme Court has indicated that if the new state has no vacancies, your transfer may not be enforced, especially if you have delayed in pursuing your transfer.

Q: What was the main reason the Supreme Court ruled against the employee in this case?
A: The main reason was that the employee did not take timely action to be relieved from his original state and continued to work there for seven years, retiring there before trying to enforce the transfer order.