Page No.# 1/23 GAHC010200312022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6478/2022 LAL BABU SAHANI AND 35 ORS SON OF LATE GOWANAR SAHANI, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FOOD STORAGE DEPOT, TIHU, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, DISTRICT- NALBARI, PIN- 781371. 2: DEB NARAYAN SAHANI SON OF LATE JEEBACH SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT- NALBARI PIN- 781371. 3: RAMJATAN CHOUDHARY SON OF RAMHIT CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371 4: SITA RAM CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE VISWANATH CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU Page No.# 2/23 NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371 5: SURESH CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE DHANRAJ CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 6: RAM NATH SAHANI SON OF LATE GANPAT SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 7: KEDAR NATH MANDAL SON OF LAXMI MANDAL FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 8: SAHIMUDDIN SHEKH SON OF LATE OMED ALI SEKH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 9: NARAYAN SAHANI SON OF LATE RAMSARUP SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 10: SANKAR SAHANI Page No.# 3/23 SON OF LATE SURAT SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 11: DAULAT CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE NARAYAN CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371 12: RAMPRIT CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE DHANIK LAL CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI TIHU PIN - -781371. 13: SAMBHU RAI SON OF LATE BIPAT RAI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 14: BIRENDRA RAI SON LATE JIWAN RAI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371 15: RAMNARESH MAHATO SON OF LATE BHOLA MAHATO FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. Page No.# 4/23 16: UMASANKAR RAI RAJESHAR RAI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 17: DHARMENDAR RAI SON OF LATE CHANDRESWAR RAI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 18: PREM LAL CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE RAMCHANDRA CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 19: JIVASH RAI SON OF LATE SHIWALT RAI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 20: ARABINDA MAHATO SON OF LATE RAMBRIKSH MAHATO FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 21: DINESH CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE RUDAL CHOUDHARY Page No.# 5/23 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 22: RAJU KUMAR RAM SON OF LATE BIJU RAM FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 23: RAMSEBAK CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE JOGINHDAR CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 24: GULAB HASAN ANSARY SON OF LATE ABDUL RAJAK FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 25: SAMSUL HAQUE SON OF LATE SAHINULLA FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 26: KAILASH CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE RAMCHANDRA CHOUDHARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Page No.# 6/23 FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 27: JOGINDAR SAHANI SON OF LATE PACHU SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 28: RADHESHYAM SAHANI SON OF LATE BADRI SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 29: RAJINDAR SAHANI SON OF LATE MISRI LAL SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 30: LAKHINDAR SAH SON OF LATE RAMA SAH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 31: RAJINDAR SAH SON OF LATE JEBAN SAH Page No.# 7/23 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 32: SURESH BHAGAT SON OF JANAK BHAGAT FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 33: RAMNATH RAUT SON OF JAGGA RAUT FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 34: SAMAT SAHANI SON OF LATE BHADAI SAHANI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 35: JAYPRAKSAH ROY SON OF LATE DASHI ROY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 781371. 36: SATYANARAYAN SAHANI SON OF LATE KHIKU SAHANI Page No.# 8/23 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD STORAGE DEPOT TIHU NEAR RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT - - NALBARI PIN - - 78137 VERSUS THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (IR-L) AND 4 ORS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ASSAM REGION, G.S. ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781008. 2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NEF ZONE) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING ULUBARI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781007. 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA BARKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI- 110001. 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA G.S ROAD PALTAN BAZAR M.T. TOWER GUWAHATI- 781007. 5:FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 16-20 BARKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-110001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A D GUPTA, MS B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, F C I, Page No.# 9/23 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 12.06.2025 Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. BK Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Food Corporation of India (FCI). 2. The petitioners before this Court are employed as Direct Payment System (DPS) workers engaged on a day-to-day daily wage basis. The petitioners are presently employed as handling workers in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) at Food Storage Depot at Tihu, Nalbari. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned transfer order dated 23.03.2022 issued by the Deputy General Manager (IR-L), whereby the petitioners are sought to be transferred from their present place of service to FSD, Chaulkhowa under District Office Dibrugarh. The proposed transfer of the petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Guwahati. Since the matter was not resolved, the petitioners approached this Court and by order dated 28.09.2022 this Court on 28.09.2022 while issuing notice had granted an interim order staying the impugned transfer order dated 23.03.2022. The interim order was subsequently extended and is still in force. Page No.# 10/23 3. The pleadings have been exchanged and as agreed to by both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for admission hearing. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that there are different types of workers employed in the FCI, like, regular employees of Food Corporation of India, Direct Payment System (DPS) Workers, Contract Laborers and No Work, No Pay System Worker. The present petitioners are engaged as Direct Payment System (DPS) Workers and are engaged on a daily wage basis. It is submitted that in the Food Storage Depot at Tihu all handling workers are Direct Payment System (DPS) Workers. It is submitted that as they are employed as DPS workers and are paid on daily wage basis their wages are dependent on the work assigned to them. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the FCI had taken a decision to operate the Food Storage Depot at Tihu through contract labourers and it is only for that reason all the handling workers of Food Storage Depot including the petitioners are sought to be transferred to Food Storage Depot at Chaulkhowa under the District Officer, Dibrugarh. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the FCI had taken a decision and which was circulated by way of a Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016. In Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016 it was clearly mentioned that the workers who are being shifted to other areas shall not be shifted beyond 100 Kms unless in cases of extreme urgency or in a situation where the Page No.# 11/23 workers inevitably have to be transferred out of the region. This Circular according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is still in force and between Tihu and Chaulkhowa the distance is well over 100 kilometers and therefore, the respondent authorities cannot take a decision to transfer the petitioners to the new place of posting, namely Food Storage Depot at Chaulkhowa without justifying the administrative reasons or exigencies which resulted in issuance of the impugned order dated 23.03.2022. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 does not reveal any such extreme exigency which required transfer of the petitioners to a place well over 100 kilometers contrary to the policy taken by the FCI by the Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents are duty bound to explain the extreme exigencies which require transfer of the petitioners working as in the DPS system to a place well over 100 kilometers. The only reason discernible is that the Tihu Food Storage Depot is required to be handled by contract labourers. No difficulties or instances have been alleged by the respondents to show that the said Depot was not capable of being handled or managed by the services rendered by the writ petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Circular No.9/2016 dated 17.08.2016 was issued by the Government pursuant to a Division Bench judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Page No.# 12/23 PIL No. 84 of 2018 on 20.11. 2015. 5. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the said judgment issued certain directions and pursuant to that the impugned Circular No. 9 of 2016 dated 17.08.2016 came to be issued where the Department had taken a policy decision not to transfer workers to far from places which are more than 100 kilometers from the place where they are currently employed except in cases of extreme exigency. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, FCI, on the other hand, strongly disputes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are employed under the FCI and transfer being an incidence of service they are required to be transferred as and when administrative exigencies required. It is submitted that the Bombay High Court judgment had clearly held that the employees may be transferred as per the administrative exigencies of the FCI. He further submits that similar issues have been decided by a Coordinate Bench by Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2020 passed in WP(C) No.3314/2020 and 3381/2020. It is submitted that the issues raised in the present writ petitions have been already dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in the said judgment and therefore, these issues stand covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Coordinator. Learned Standing Counsel for the Page No.# 13/23 respondents further submits that the Apex Court by the judgment and order dated 20.07.1990 rendered in Food Corporation of India Workers Union vs. Food Corporation of India and Others reported in 1990 (Supplement) SCC 296 had directed for revision of wages of the workers employed in the Depots of FCI in Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi regions and same has been undertaken by the FCI Department. The transfers of the petitioners undertaken by the FCI are purely for administrative exigencies for rationalizing labour. Referring to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the said matters also the petitioners therein had questioned the transfer order. The Coordinate Bench referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 had rejected the contentions of the petitioners therein and dismissed the writ petition. It was held that transfer being an incidence of service unless malafide exercise of power is shown or that the authority issuing the transfer order is not the competent authority to issue the transfer order or that the transfer order will have adverse consequence in respect of the service conditions of the service holders, no interference is called for by Writ Court while exercising jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench the petitioners therein were Page No.# 14/23 regular employees, whereas the petitioners before the present proceedings are employed as under the DPS system and are paid on daily wage basis and are, therefore, not regular employees. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 9. From the pleadings as well as upon perusal of the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in Naresh Sahani & Ors. vs. Food Corporation of India & Others reported in 2020 (5) GLT 536, it is seen that there are different types of workers employed by the FCI, namely, Departmental Labour System (DLS), Contract Labour System (CLS), Direct Payment System (DPS) and No Work No Pay System (NWNPS). There is no dispute that the present writ petitioners are employed under the Direct Payment System (DPS). In the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench it is seen that the writ petitioners were found to be regular employees of the FCI. Whether the petitioners therein were also employed in the Direct Payment System (DPS) is not discernible from the facts narrated in the said judgment of the Coordinate Bench. In order to decide the question raised before the Court, it is necessary to refer to the Circular No. 9 of 2016 dated 17.08.2016 : Circular No.9/2016 Dated 17.08.2016. Page No.# 15/23 Attention is invited to the Hqrs. letter No.IR(L)/31(12)/2004/Vol.X dated 12.07.2016 wherein guidelines on various acton points, after issue of exemption notification by Government of India, were conveyed to the field officers. 2. During the course of subsequent interactions with some of the labour unions, it has been gathered that some baseless and unfounded rumours are being floated in the field that FCI's departmentalised workers under different labour systems are going to be rendered jobless after FCI appoints contractors in some of the notified depots. It is, therefore, necessary that such unfounded rumours/notions are dispelled by issuing strong messages to the field functionaries that under no situation, the existing departmentalised labourers shall be rendered jobless and they will continue to work as such for FCI's handling operations. 3. The shifting / pooling exercise is to be undertaken as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) to make the operations more efficient and cost effective. The directions of the Hon'ble High Court to the effect that the salary / wages and other service conditions of the workers will not be disturbed while undertaking transfer of these workers, must be meticulously complied with. 4. The Hon'ble Minister, CA,F&PD has observed that at certain places workers are being shifted to far flung areas and it has been desired not to shift the workers beyond 100 KMs unless in cases of extreme exigency or in a situation where the workers inevitably have to be transferred out of the Region. 5. Necessary advice in this regard to cause minimum possible dislocation to the workers while undertaking the rationalisation exercise, was conveyed earlier also in the guidelines referred above. The above advisory should be taken note of while undertaking rationalisation exercise in the Region/Zone.” 10. It is also necessary to refer to a communication dated 12.07.2016 issued by the Chief General Manager (IR-L) which reveals the guidelines for implementation of exemption notification dated 06.07.2016 under Section 31 of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 issued by the Government of India. The communication dated 12.07.2016 is extracted below: No. IR(L)/31/(10)/2004/Vol-X Dated 12.07.2016 Page No.# 16/23 To, General Manager (Region) Food Corporation of India Regional Office New Delhi/ Chandigarh/ Panchkula/ Shimla/ Jaipur/ Lucknow/ Dehradun/ Mumbai / Bhopal Ahmedabad Raipur/ Patna/ Bhubaneshwar/ Shillong/ Guwahati/ Dimapur/Chennai/ Thiruvanthapuram/ Bangalore/ Hyderabad/ Ranchi/ Kolkata/Itanagar. Sub: Guidelines for implementation of exemption notification dated 06-07-2016 under section 31 of Contract Labour (R&A) Act 1970 issued by Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. Sir, Government of India issued modification dated 06-07-2016 in pursuance to the directions given by Nagpur Bench of High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 20-11-2015 in PIL. No. 84 of 2014. By the said notification Government had exempted Depots and Railheads of FCI from applicability of all the earlier notifications specified in the notification dated 06-07-2016 (Copy enclosed as Annexure-1) for a period of 2 years subject to compliance of the conditions specified under sub-clause (a) of clause (v) of sub-rule (2) of rule 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rule, 1971. 2. In all 289 depots / railheads were notified vide 13 notifications as per details given in Annexure- II. The proposal for exemption / denotification of 226 notified depot/railhead was submitted to Ministry of labour and Employment through Ministry of CA, F& PD as these depots were operative (existing) on the date of submission of proposal. Now the operational notified depots have been further reduced to 209, consequent upon dehiring of 17 notified depots as per details givenunder. Labour strength as on 31.03.2016. No of Depots (Operative Under Departmenalized Labour) Labour system Notified Non-Notified Total of Depots No of Owned Hired Total Owned Hired Total Owned Hired Total Work-ers Depart- mental 89 6 95 47 3 50 136 9 145 15203 DPS 32 6 38 153 15 168 185 21 206 25283 NWNP 70 6 76 10 8 18 80 14 94 7426 Total 191 18 209 210 26 236 401 44 445 47912 3. All the 226 Notified Depots/Railhead are covered by the Notification dated 06.07.2016 and FCI is, therefore, now free to reorganize and rationalize the deployment of existing Departmental/DPS/NWNP Page No.# 17/23 System workers for their gainful utilization by pooling them into a fewer depots as per operational requirements so that optimum number of workers are deployed for carrying out FCI Operations in the most efficient manner. 4. Following steps may be taken to rationalize the existing manpower. i) The pooling of the departmentalized labourers in fewer depots may be done by making inter-dept, inter-district, inter-region and inter Zone (in exceptional Cases) transfers from one depot to the other depots operative under the same labour system. The authorities competent to permit such transfers are indicates as under Area of Transfer Competent Authority to make transfer Inter- depot transfer within district Area Manager Inter-District Transfer GM (Region) Inter-Region ED (Zone) Inter-Zone FCI, Hqrs (ii) The requirement of labour in the heavily operated depots may be calculated on current average work load of proceeding three financial years by the formula given below: No of Handling Labour required = Average Annual work load of three preceding Financial year/135*240. No of Ancillary Labour Required = 4 Ancillary Labour against the storage capacity of 5000 M.T. After calculating the requirement of the heavily operated depots by applying the above formula labourers from the depot having scanty handling operation may be shifted to nearby depots so that there is least disturbance to the workers. In case of the departmental labour pooling should be made taking into consideration zero incentive on datum i.e. the labour is sufficient enough to manage the work within the norms and there are minimum occasions for payment of incentive on number of bags handled in a day. (iii) The depots are to be prioritized in descending order on the basis of requirement for distributing the workers, in the pooling exercise. Pooling should be in maximum work load depots first so that idle wage are also minimized in case of departmental and DPS workers. (iv) Deployment of labourers in the main depots may be done in such a manner that the workers can be deployed to undertake loading/unloading operation in nearby depots on need basis, when there is no availability of work load in main depot. Mechanism should be developed in such a manner that workers are required to travel minimum distance and deployment on tour is manageable from their place of posting with least disturbance. (v) The objective of rationalization of the labour strength is to curtail the cost of incentive wages, therefore the pooling should be done in such a manner that output per day of a handling labour will remain ordinarily between 135-150 bags on the peak day of loading/unloading of rakes. (vi) All the FCI workers currently working in CWC & SWC godowns/hired depots / Railheads need to be pooled into FCI's own depots and contract labour be deployed in their place in case godown are to be retained. (vi) As per existing instructions, workers under Departmental and DPS category on their transfer by Page No.# 18/23 FCI, in the interest of administration, are entitled to get weightage of seniority at the new place. It has been decided that till further order, Seniority position of group of the workers of the gang transferred from one depot to other, will not be disturbed and separate identity of such workers will be maintained in the incoming depot so that it does not jeopardize promotional avenues of the workers already working in such depots. (viii) The surplus workers of one Region can be adjusted in the depots of other regions of the zone. (ix) In case option is given by the surplus workers of a Region for transfer to the other Regions within the Zone, the same should be carefully considered by Zone and shifting them to shortfall depots may be adhered under intimation to IR-L division of FCI Hqrs. (x) Individual depot should have single labour system and in no case labour of more than one system be engaged in one depot. (xi) Subsequent to pooling of labourers, handling contractors be deployed in vacant depots following due process. It is, therefore, requested that the process for implementation of exemption notification dated 06-07-2016 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, may kindly be initiated immediately in all 226 depots as per list enclosed (Annexure-III). Action Taken Report in this regard may kindly be furnished to this office within 15 days. Further suggestion with regard to above guidelines for smooth implementation of the aforesaid notification at field level if any, may please also be sent to Hqrs immediately alongwith proper reasoning. 11. The judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in PIL No. 84 of 2018 is carefully perused. In the said PIL the Bombay High Court examined the rationalization of the wage/ the payment system to the various labourers employed under the FCI. The Bombay High Court, upon examination of the matter in its entirety, issued the following directions: 30. In that view of the matter, we of the dispose Public Interest Litigation by passing the following order. (i) The Government of India is directed to decide the representation made by the Food Corporation of India for grant of exemption under the provisions of Section 31 of the said Act within a period of one month from today, in the light of observations made by us hereinabove within a period of one month from today. (ii) The Government of India shall decide the issue regarding de-notification of the depots of the Food Corporation of India, in respect of which notification is issued u/s.10 of the said Act, within a period of six months from today, in the light of Page No.# 19/23 observations made by us hereinabove and the report of M/s. Deloitt Consultancy and the report of High Level Committee appointed by the Government of India itself. (iii) We clarify that the respondent/Food Corporation of India would be entitled to transfer the services of departmental labourers from one depot to another subject to protecting their salary and service conditions. (iv) We also clarify that the respondent/Corporation would be at liberty to implement its policy of change in the Scheme of incentives. (v) The Government of India of India shall also take a decision regarding abolition of system of departmental labourers in a phased manner or absorbing their services in other establishments as recommended by the High Level Committee. 12. Pursuant to this order it is submitted at the Bar that Circular No. 9 of 2016 dated 17.08.2016 was issued which clearly reveals that the Department’s policy decision, inter alia, that where workers are being shifted to far flung places, it has been decided not to shift such workers beyond 100 kilometers unless in cases of extreme exigency or in a situation where the workers inevitably have to be transferred out of the region. This circular has not been shown to be recalled, modified or withdrawn. On the other hand, this is found to be referred to in the communications issued by the Department including the communication issued to the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati dated 05.09.2022 with regard to the industrial dispute raised by the FCI Handling Workers Union, New Delhi, regarding transfer of all DPS workers working in FCI FSD Gosaigon and Tihu to FCI FSD Chaulkhowa Dibrugarh. In the said communication also the reference to the Circular No. 9 of 2016 is made and that apart, reference to circular No. 11 of 2022 dated 17.08.2022 is also Page No.# 20/23 made, wherein the policy that workers should not be shifted beyond 100 kilometers unless in cases of extreme exigency was reiterated and directed to be strictly complied with. The only ground which the Respondents have raised justifying the transfer of the petitioners is that the policy decision reflected in circular No.9 of 2016 not to transfer workers to places beyond 100 kilometers do not apply in cases of extreme exigencies. Although a detailed affidavit has been filed, the respondents have not been able to justify the extreme exigency that required transfer of the workers from Tihu to Chaulkhuwa which admittedly is beyond 100 kilometers. No decision has been placed before this Court to support the contention of the respondents that a situation which can be termed to be ‘extreme exigency’ which justified the issuance of the impugned transfer order dated 23.03.2022 other than mere references that this transfer order is in administrative exigencies and/or extreme exigencies. The respondents have not been able to justify the same with any supporting reasons. The only other ground urged is that the transfer is made for rationalization of the labours as the Tihu Depot is now sought to be handled through contract labourer and therefore, the workers employed under the Direct Payment System are required to be transferred elsewhere. Whether such ground for transfer will amount to extreme exigencies which will justify transfer of the DPS workers to a place more than 100 kilometers cannot be interpreted in the absence of cogent Page No.# 21/23 materials in support of such claims being produced before the Court by the respondents. 13. The law laid down by the Apex Court and followed by this Court in several judgments with regard to the parameters of transfers are not in dispute. The ratio laid down in Govardhan Lal (supra) is well accepted and this Court respectfully accepts the parameters laid down therein. The transfer order issued by an authority is not to be interfered with in judicial review unless it is issued in malafide exercise of power or any malice has been alleged and substantially proved against any such authority or the order is issued violating of any statutory provision or that the authority who issued the order is otherwise not competent to issue the order. However, the fact remains that the policy decision taken by the Government of India and having accepted by the FCI, the respondent authorities are required to function within the parameters set forth by such policy decision adopted. The said policy decision itself provides for an exception where workers can be shifted to places beyond 100 kilometers, namely, in case of ‘extreme exigency’. This policy decision having been accepted by the FCI and this condition being reiterated in subsequent circulars, but he respondent authorities having accepted the said policy decision are required to justify the grounds which required the transfer order to be issued for transfer/shifting of the workers to a place beyond 100 kilometers. A mere Page No.# 22/23 reference to the transfer order being issued on the ground of 'extreme exigency' cannot, by itself, be accepted as sufficient to establish that the case indeed involves 'extreme exigency'. Since the policy decision have been accepted and implemented by the FCI, the respondent authorities are duty-bound to justify the transfer of the petitioners with cogent materials and disclose the rationale behind transferring them to a place admittedly more than 100 km away from their present place of posting, particularly when such transfer is in contravention of the policy adopted and circulated under Circular No. 9/2016. The Coordinate Bench Judgment on the facts of the present case will not be applicable as the petitioners before the Coordinate Bench were found to be regular workers. As discussed before the Co-ordinate Bench, the petitioners therein were regular workers, it is also not urged before this Court that the petitioners herein who are the DPS workers are also to be treated as regular workers. Therefore, the judgment in Naresh Sahani (supra) rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench will not be applicable to the facts of the case. There is another reason why this ratio laid down in Naresh Sahani (supra) will not be applicable in the present facts of the case as the question of ‘extreme exigency’ as described under Circular No.9/2016 was not an issue decided by the Coordinate Bench as no such question appears to have been raised before the Coordinate Bench that the transfer order of those regular employees in Naresh Sahani (supra) were also in Page No.# 23/23 violation of the condition prescribed in Circular No.9/2016. 14. In view of the above discussions, the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Bench must be distinguished from the facts in the present proceedings and therefore, the ratio laid down in Naresh Sahani (supra) cannot be made applicable as the question raised in the present proceedings was not raised in the proceedings before the Coordinate Bench in Naresh Sahani (supra) and was, therefore, never answered. 15. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioners will have to be answered in affirmative. However, since the transfer and shifting of the petitioners is an administrative action by the respondents, this Court considers it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of transfer dated 23.03.2022 and remit the matter back to the respondent authorities to examine the matter in the light of the various circulars issued by the FCI itself, more particularly, Circular No. 9 of 2016 dated 17.08.2016 and thereafter, the authorities may pass appropriate orders thereon. 16. The writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of in terms of the above. The interim order dated 28.09.2022 stands merged. JUDGE Comparing Assistant