2025:JHHC:35078 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2986 of 2025 ---- Rakesh Ranjan Sinha, son of Satish Chandra Sinha, resident of village Q. No. 54, Sector 1/C, P.O. Head Post Office, P.S. B.S. City, District- Bokaro. … Petitioner -versus- 1. Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. (a joint venture of SAIL & DVC) represented through its Chief Executive Officer having its registered office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and plant office at Hall No. M-01, Old Admn. Building, Ispat Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. (a joint venture of SAIL & DVC), having its office at Hall No. M-01, Old Admn. Building, Ispat Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro ..… Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate ---- O R D E R Reserved on 07.10.2025 Pronounced on 25/11/2025 Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the office order dated 24.05.2025 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the order of transfer of the petitioner has been issued. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant General Manager in E-6 Grade in the year 2005 and thereafter, promoted to the post of Dy. General Manager and General Manager in the year 2011 and 2017 respectively. The post of General Manager was restructured as Chief General Manager vide office order dated 31.10.2019. On 24.05.2025, an office order was issued whereby the petitioner was transferred as Chief General Manager (Sustainability) at DVC Headquarters, DVC Tower, Kolkata. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no such post of Chief General Manager (Sustainability) in Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. and the same is evident from the approved organizational structure chart in the minutes of the 114th Board Meeting. The counsel submitted that the respondent no. 1 has its registered office in New Delhi and there is no office at DVC Tower Kolkata. The counsel stated that the power of transfer could be exercised in consultation with GMI/c and concerned HoD and since 2025:JHHC:35078 -: 2 :- the petitioner is the CGM (HR) at E-8 Grade and also the HoD, he cannot be transferred. Further, in absence of any specific delegation of authority for transfer of employees, the power rests with the Appointing Authority. The counsel also contended that the transfer of the petitioner to DVC Headquarters, Kolkata, violates Clause 6 of the appointment letter, which specifies that transfer would only be made to existing or future offices of the management. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is a diabetic person who regularly avails medical facility from the Hospital of SAIL and it will difficult for him after transfer as there are no medical facilities for the employees of BPSCL at DVC Headquarters Kolkata. The counsel further submitted that the transfer order will have a serious effect on the education of the petitioner’s son who is in 11th standard. The counsel also stated that the petitioner has an on going trial before the CJM Bokaro. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents submitted at the management of Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. does have its office at DVC Tower, Kolkata and the company policy clearly states that any employee can be transferred as per the requirements of the company. The counsel also stated that the Chairman and Directors of the Company are seated at DVC Tower, Kolkata and hence, the contentions of the petitioner are totally misconceived. The counsel also stated with regard to the on going trial issue of the petitioner that the company would provide the facilities to travel from Kolkata to Bokaro. The counsel submitted that the petitioner being the HoD was not required to be consulted in his own case for transfer. 5. Transfer is an incidence of service. An employer has power to transfer its employee even without an express provision or any terms to that effect. It is an implied condition of service. The employer exercises the power of transfer through competent authority. Power of transfer should be exercised bonafidely and without any malice and in administrative exigencies. If the transfer is made bonafidely, without any malice, in exigencies of administration, that too by the competent authority and is not punitive or stigmatic, the same cannot be interfered with. Further, a transfer should not affect the seniority and prospect for promotion detrimentally to the person who is transferred. 6. In this case, one of the grounds taken by the petitioner is that there is no post of Chief General Manager (Sustainability) in Kolkata Office of Damodar Valley Corporation. Thus, transferring the petitioner as Chief General Manager (Sustainability) is bad. This Court is not accepting the said 2025:JHHC:35078 -: 3 :- argument of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is in E-8 Grade. The substantive post of the petitioner is Chief General Manager. Petitioner, who was designated as Chief General Manager has been transferred in the same cadre. From the records, I find that as BPSCL needed a turnaround and transformation to make its existence sustainable, and for improvement and proper coordination between Damodar Valley Corporation and BPSCL, it was felt to post a Senior Executive at DVC Headquarters, Kolkata. The said official posted had to coordinate with various department at Kolkata, BPSCL Office as also with the Office of Chairman (BPSCL) and directors of BPSCL as and when required. Names of 5 (five) persons were proposed including that of the petitioner. This fact is evident from pages 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit. 7. E-8 post, it is to be noted that Chief General Manager and General Manager are in the same category. The petitioner, in fact, was working as Chief General Manager (HR), Bokaro and now has been transferred as Chief General Manager (Sustainability), Kolkata. It cannot be said that by the said transfer, petitioner was demoted or deprived of any post. Admittedly, there is a post of Chief General Manager in Kolkata and in fact, Chief General Manager (Sustainability) is not a substantive post, but it is Chief General Manager, which is the substantive post. Further, the Sur- rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents, Annexure ‘E’ thereof, clearly states that the roles and responsibilities of Chief General Manager (Sustainability) was conceptualized for betterment of the company and the petitioner was transferred to Kolkata in exigency of administration. 8. So far as power is concerned, I find that the respondents has jurisdiction and power to transfer the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner was a consultee to transfer officers of E-7 Grade by the Chief Executive Officer, the same cannot be a ground not to transfer the petitioner to Kolkata. The Chief Executive Officer of the Company has got full power to transfer the petitioner, which is evident from page 58 of the writ petition, which defines the nature and powers and the person, who can exercise the same. Clause 15.1 deals with transfer within the organization and the Chief Executive Officer has full powers to transfer any person within the organization. In this case, admittedly the Chief Executive Officer has exercised the powers to transfer the petitioner, thus, it cannot be said that the transfer was without jurisdiction. 2025:JHHC:35078 -: 4 :- 9. There may be a clause that Head of the Department may be consulted by the Chief Executive Officer to transfer any of the officers, but when Head of the Department needs to be transferred, it is not necessary to consult any person as Clause 15.2 gives power to the Chief Executive Officer to transfer any person. In this case, it is not necessary to consult any person when Head of the Department needed to be transferred. It cannot be said that transfer of the petitioner is against the rules of the company. 10. So far as the ground taken by the petitioner that he is not keeping well and his apprehension that he will not get proper medical facilities at Kolkata, are concerned, the same are unfounded. Being a metropolitan city, Kolkata, definitely has advanced medical facilities, which can be availed by the petitioner. So far as the ground that the wife of the petitioner is working at Binod Bihari Mahato University, the same cannot be a ground to retain the petitioner in Bokaro. In administrative exigencies and for better administration of the company, it was felt to transfer the petitioner, which cannot be interfered with on the aforesaid grounds. Moreover, personal reasons and hardships cannot be grounds to resist the order of transfer. Accordingly, in absence of any material to suggest malafide, violation of any rules or when there are materials to suggest that the petitioner’s transfer is in the interest of administration, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. This writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Dated, the 25th November, 2025 R.S./ A.F.R.