Authority: High Court of Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)

Order Date: 09.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Manas Mandal (Chief Engineer, Haldia Dock Complex, Kolkata Port Trust) versus Union of India and others, including Kolkata Port Trust.
  • Background:
  • Appointed Chief Engineer on 12 September 2012 by Haldia Dock Complex (HDC) under Kolkata Port Trust.
  • Served as Chief Mechanical Engineer at Mumbai Port.
  • Underwent major cardiac surgery in 2022 and requested a home posting in Kolkata; request denied.
  • Transferred to HDC on 16 March 2024; release order issued 17 March 2024; joined HDC as General Manager (Engineering) on 23 March 2024.
  • A new transfer policy for heads of department (HOD) level officers was notified on 29 July 2024.
  • On 13 July 2026, the petitioner was transferred from HDC to Cochin under the new policy (Clause 7.2b – administrative ground).
  • Petition filed on 17 July 2026 seeking relief; learned that the vacated post was advertised on 20 July 2026 for absorption through composite method.
  • Petitioner’s Grounds (four issues):

1. Clause 7.2 of the policy requires a minimum five‑year retention for transfers; petitioner had only 2 years 4 months in post.

2. No performance‑related reason for frequent transfers.

3. Health concerns – petitioner’s fragile condition post‑surgery requires care available only in West Bengal; alleged transfer is vindictive.

4. The vacant post is being filled by composite method, not by an equally competent officer.

  • Relied on judgments: Rajneesh Khajuria (2020), Ex‑Armymen’s Protection Services (2014), N.K. Singh (1994), State of West Bengal v. Chira Ranjan Shit (1982).
  • Respondent’s Submissions (Union of India & Kolkata Port Trust):
  • Transfer policy distinguishes three heads: rotational (7.2a), administrative (7.2b), request (7.2c). Petitioner’s transfer falls under 7.2b (administrative), which does not impose a five‑year tenure.
  • No discriminatory intent; transfer is a legitimate administrative action.
  • Cited judgments: Pubi Lombi (2024), Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt (1993).
  • Kolkata Port Trust argued that Clause 7.2a and 7.2b have distinct parameters; the five‑year rule applies only to rotational transfers.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • Only two grounds can invalidate a transfer: violation of a mandatory statutory rule or mala fide.
  • No substantive proof of mala fide; mere allegation insufficient (citing Pubi Lombi and Supreme Court pronouncements).
  • The cited petitioner judgments pertain to non‑service matters and are inapplicable.
  • Clause 7.2b expressly permits transfer on administrative grounds even before completion of five years; the authority is not obliged to disclose the specific administrative exigency.
  • The petitioner’s health considerations, while sympathetic, do not constitute a statutory bar to transfer.
  • Supreme Court decisions (N.K. Singh, S.L. Abbas, Pubi Lombi, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar) reaffirm limited judicial interference in service transfers absent mala fide or statutory breach.
  • Consequently, the transfer complies with the 2024 transfer policy and does not violate any mandatory provision.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed.
  • The interim order previously granted is vacated.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Certified copy of the judgment to be provided upon request.

Topics: Transfer Policy, Administrative Law