01Facts
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, challenged an order transferring her from the TSP VIII Battalion in New Delhi to the TSP XII Battalion in Manimuthar, Tamil Nadu.
p. 2She contended that she had filed a sexual-harassment complaint against senior officials, which had been proved, and that the transfer was punitive; she also relied on her children’s schooling in New Delhi.
p. 2The respondents maintained that the transfer was for administrative reasons and that Section 12 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 did not apply.
p. 3The Court noted that the petitioner had worked in New Delhi for 12 years on deployment and had previously granted interim relief to enable her elder son to complete Class 10.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the transfer from New Delhi to Manimuthar was liable to be quashed as a punitive measure connected with the petitioner’s sexual-harassment complaint.
pp. 2–3ii.2. Whether the petitioner could claim a right to remain posted in New Delhi because of her length of service there and her children’s schooling.
p. 303Law Applied
The Court stated that transfer is incidental to service and that an employee cannot claim, as a matter of right, to remain posted at a particular location.
p. 3The petitioner relied on Section 2 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and the respondents referred to Section 12; however, the Court did not set out or apply a specific statutory rule under either provision in its reasoning.
pp. 2–3Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 2Section 12
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had served in New Delhi for 12 years on deployment and held that this did not confer a right to continue there.
p. 3It did not find a basis to interfere with the transfer on the petitioner’s contention that it was punitive.
p. 3As to the children’s education, the Court observed that CBSE schools and Kendriya Vidyalayas were available in Tamil Nadu.
p. 3It nevertheless addressed the petitioner’s circumstances by impleading the Deputy Commissioner, KVS, Chennai, and directing that authority to consider accommodating the children in a nearby Kendriya Vidyalaya sympathetically.
p. 405Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the transfer in force.
p. 4It directed the Deputy Commissioner, KVS, Regional Office, Chennai, to consider the petitioner’s case sympathetically for accommodation of her children in a nearby Kendriya Vidyalaya.
p. 4No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
p. 4Original Court PDF
C. DeepavsThe Inspector General of Police
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
