Recently, the Supreme Court of India made an important decision regarding the issue of employees refusing transfer orders and being absent without permission. The ruling was made by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, highlighting that transfers are a normal part of government jobs and employees are expected to follow these orders or face the consequences of being absent without authorization.
Background of the Case
The case began when Tamil Nadu Agricultural University appealed against a decision by the Madras High Court. The High Court had canceled the transfer orders for several employees, claiming that the transfers did not follow proper administrative procedures. During the legal proceedings, six employees at the university initially refused to follow their transfer orders, resulting in them being absent without authorization. However, they eventually joined their new posts after receiving an interim order from the Supreme Court.
The main question in this case was whether these employees should receive payment for the time they were absent without permission. The Court looked at several important factors, including the obligation of government employees to respect transfer orders and how their refusal to do so affects public resources.
Key Points from the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Employee Transfers
The Court made several key observations regarding the rights and responsibilities of employees under service laws:
- Transfer is Essential for Service: The Court emphasized that transfers are a necessary part of government service. Employees are expected to comply with transfer orders unless they are specifically exempted by applicable rules. If employees wish to challenge their transfer orders, they can do so legally, but they must still report to their new position in the meantime. In other words, they should start working at the new post and then pursue any grievances they have.
- Consequences of Unauthorized Absence: The Court criticized the behavior of employees who refuse to join their new posts while simultaneously challenging their transfer orders. The Justices pointed out that this creates a financial burden on the government, as it may have to pay salaries to both the employees who refuse to transfer and their replacements. This situation is not in the public’s best interest.
- Previous Rulings on Transfers: The Court referenced earlier cases, such as Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, to reinforce the idea that transfers are necessary for administrative purposes and must be followed by employees. They also mentioned Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, which stated that failing to comply with transfer orders—even when contested—can lead to disciplinary action.
Case Details
The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University filed the appeal after the Madras High Court allowed the employees to remain in their original positions due to procedural errors in the transfer process. The six employees involved in this case—identified as Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7—initially challenged their transfers but eventually followed the Supreme Court’s order in February 2023.
The Court noted that four of the six employees had received interim relief from a Single Judge of the High Court, which meant they were entitled to their salary during their absence. However, Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 did not receive such relief and were not entitled to payment for the time they were absent without permission. The Court pointed out that these respondents wrongly assumed they could benefit from the interim orders granted to others.
Supreme Court’s Final Directions
The Supreme Court issued clear instructions to resolve the ongoing issues:
- Approval of Appeals by the University: The appeals by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University were accepted, and the earlier High Court decisions were set aside.
- Payment for Some Employees: The University was directed to pay all outstanding dues to Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, ensuring they received their salaries for the periods covered by interim orders.
- No Payment for Unauthorized Absence: Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 were ruled not entitled to salaries for the time they were absent without permission, but their service continuity would remain intact, allowing them to receive other benefits.
Conclusion
This ruling underscores the essential principle that government employees must comply with transfer orders as part of their responsibilities. Justice Vikram Nath highlighted that this compliance is crucial for maintaining administrative efficiency and avoiding unnecessary financial strain on public resources. Simply challenging transfer orders does not excuse employees from their duties, especially when it creates additional burdens on the administration.
