This is an archive article published on November 1, 2015

Allahabad HC: single transfer can’t be turned into systemic issue

Divison bench sets aside single bench order directing UPSRTC MD to prepare list of ‘medically unfit’ drivers and consider compulsory retirement.

3 min readAllahabadNov 1, 2015 02:40 AM IST First published on: Nov 1, 2015 at 02:40 AM IST

THE Allahabad High Court has set aside a direction passed by a single judge bench, in which the Uttar Pradesh Surface Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) was asked to draw a list of “medically unfit” drivers and look into the possibility of their compulsory retirement. The order is likely to come as a major relief for hundreds of drivers employed with the UPSRTC.

A division bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Yashwant Varma passed the order on October 16, which became available this week, while hearing a special appeal filed by Chhote Lal Yadav and four others, through their counsel Samir Sharma.

[related-post]

The petitioners had claimed that they were affected by the order passed by the single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel on July 15.
Earlier, Virendra Yadav, a driver posted at the Deoria depot, had challenged his transfer order to Sonauli depot on the ground that his retirement was near and he was medically unfit to take up the new posting.

The single judge bench, while allowing Yadav to pursue his representation already made before the authorities concerned in this regard, passed an added direction to the managing director, UPSRTC asking him to prepare a list of such drivers and constitute a committee to look into the issue of their compulsory retirement, provided the drivers concerned had spent the required minimum number of years in service. The MD was also asked to submit a compliance report. A list was said to be under preparation.

The drivers, who were not party to this petition, approached the division bench in a special appeal on various grounds. Some of these were: they were not heard at the time of passing such directions; they were getting affected by the order even though they had not raised any grievance, or did not face any problems; the single judge bench had no occasion to pass such general direction as it was a mere service matter.

Passing the order, the court said: “We find merit in the contention…that the aforesaid directions were not warranted and ought not to have been passed in a petition filed by an employee challenging an order of transfer”.

The court said that the “limited issue” in the writ petition related to the validity of the order of transfer, which was passed against a driver of the UPSRTC. “These directions would affect a large number of employees, who have not been heard. In any event, we find no reason or occasion for the court to enlarge a limited dispute ‘into a systemic issue relating to compulsory retirement of medically unfit persons’. We, accordingly, set aside those directions,” the court said.
However, the division bench expressly clarified that this order would not preclude the authorities concerned from taking any action related to the service matter as required, as long as they were within the ambit of the law. The court further said the order also did not preclude any legal rights of the employees.