30.09.2026 Court No.10 DL/Item No.–2 [Milan] WPA 27912 of 2026 SUBODH KUMAR VS COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS. Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sambuddha Dutta, Mr. Puranjan Pal, Ms. Sushmita Dutta ….for the Petitioner Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Mr. Siddthartha Chamria, Mr. Adhip Narayan Banerjee, Mr. Aspujan Singh ….Coal India Ltd. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has challenged in the present Writ Petition the Order of Transfer dated 08.09.2026 wherein the petitioner has been promoted from Chief Manager (Mining) in E7 Grade to the post of General Manager (Mining) in E8 Grade in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 2,80,000/- and has been posted to a remote area of North Eastern Coalfield, Assam. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Mining Engineer and was initially appointed as Management Trainee (Mining) on or about 13.02.1997 by the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. (Govt. of India Enterprise). The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Assistant Manager (Mining) in 1999, under Manager (Mining) in 2002, under Senior Manager (Mining) in 2005, Senior Manager (Mining) in 2015 and Chief Manager (Mining) in 2 2021. The petitioner has unblemished service record of 29 years. 4. The petitioner while working as Senior Manager, Rajmahal area was charge-sheeted vide Memorandum bearing Ref. No. CCL/Vid/RDA-02/21/2021/167 dated 21.06.2021 under Rule 30 of the Coal India Executive Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (Amended up to18.01.2021) (hereinafter referred to as the CDA Rules) on some baseless and frivolous charges. Over some of the charges mentioned in the Memorandum dated 21.05.2021, a full-fledged Departmental Enquiry was held against the petitioner, inflicting upon him a major penalty of reduction of two stages lowering time scale of pay for a period of six months. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the Major Penalty which was reduced to censure by the Appellate Authority. 5. The petitioner further challenged the entire disciplinary proceeding by filing a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter by an Order dated 02.05.2025 this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of censure. 6. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner received an order of transfer to a remote area to NEC at Assam. After receiving the said order of transfer the petitioner made representation dated 15.09.2026 before the competent authority for its consideration. It is submitted that the said representation is required to be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. However, the same remains pending for consideration 3 without any decision. As a result of which such representation deserves to be disposed of expeditiously. 7. It is further submitted that the order of transfer to a remote area is aftermath of the litigation in which the petitioner has been successful. Posting of the petitioner to NEC at Assam is to be counter bias and malafide, made due to his success in litigation relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The transfer is punitive in nature and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is further submitted that as per Clause 9(a), Clause 9(b) read with Clause 9(d) of the Promotion Guidelines of CIL, it is mandatory to transfer the Executive with relatively higher length of completed years of service in a subsidiary for manpower rationalization. As per the Policy of Coal India Ltd. (CIL), a transfer to new subsidiary is not optional, transfer on promotion of Executive from E7 to E8 Grade is need-based. However, in the present case, there is no General Manager available in the parent subsidiary for running the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred whereas similarly situated candidates promoted as General Manager in Mining Sector have been retained at the parent subsidiary (CIL) which is discriminatory and inviolation of principles of natural justice. 9. Per contra, the respondent authorities vehemently opposes the submission made by the petitioner and submits that transfer is a condition of service and the employees are required to comply with the transfer order. 4 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been serving the CIL for last 29 years and has not been transferred to any other subsidiary of the CIL. The petitioner’s contention with regard to the retention of a similarly situated candidates being promoted as General Manager Mining Sector is not sustainable, since unlike the other candidates, the petitioner has never been transferred to another post despite serving CIL for the last 29 years. A long stay at one place itself requires manpower rationalization. 11. It is further submitted that the right to transfer is not a vested right. It is an administrative policy taken by the company for administrative purposes. Transfer is an incident of service. No employee can claim retention at one place as a matter of right. The post of General Manager in various sectors in a subsidiary is a single post. Therefore, when petitioner is promoted from E7 to E8 he has to be posted against a vacancy in another subsidiary. 12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities raises an objection to the intent and purport of the petitioner’s representation dated 15.06.2026 wherein the petitioner has specifically, in the garb of a representation, directed the authority to obtain an approval for retention of the petitioner, which is not permissible. 13. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, this Court have taken judicial notice of all the relevant documents annexed to the writ petition and is of the considered view that the representation dated 15.09.2026 requires effective 5 adjudication of the issues involved herein i.e. as to whether the petitioner being promoted to General Manager (Mining) can be retained in its parent subsidiary company despite being transferred to a different subsidiary company, where there is no General Manager left for running the subsidiary. 14. It is a Trite Law that the transfer is an incident of service and cannot be lightly interfered with. 15. It is a well settled proposition of law as held in Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 532, that “court should not interfere with the transfer order in public interest and for administrative reason unless made in violation of mandatory statutory a Rule or on ground of malafide. Government service holding transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place”. 16. It is also observed in the case of Sk. Naushad Rahaman Vs Union of India reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1 and has held that transfer policy is only guideline not legally enforceable, does not confer indefeasible right. 17. In the case of State of U.P vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 and Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa reported in 1999 Supple (4) SCC 169 where is has been held that the transfer cannot be interfered with unless clearly arbitrarily is being vitiated by malafide. 18. A judgment passed by this Court in WPA 16132 of 2021 Raju Didar Singh Gill vs. Coal India Ltd. & Ors. and WPA 17774 of 2019 wherein it has been held that the CIL Promotion Policy from E7 to E8 is based upon merits cum seniority and the Court cannot interfere into such policy 6 matter inasmuch as the writ court cannot intervene in any policy matter. 19. In the present case the petitioner has already served CIL for 29 years without inter subsidiary transfer. As per Clause 9A, 9B read with 9D of promotion Guideline, transfer of executive with higher length of service is mandatory for manpower rationalization. Transfer of the promotee from E7 to E8 is need based. Allegation of malafide, being aftermath of disciplinary proceeding the disputed question of facts require adjudication by competent authority after hearing. 20. This Court is not inclined to interdict the transfer order dated 08.09.2026 at this stage. However, to balance equities and for ends of justice, the representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2026 should be decided on merits to arrive at a logical and a conclusive finding with regard to the retention of the petitioner at the parent subsidiary (CIL). Thus, the respondent No. 2 being the competent and superior authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2026 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law upon affording opportunity of personal hearing and communicate such decision within a week thereafter. 21. The petitioner is directed to join at NEC, Assam within two weeks from date. Such joining shall be without prejudice to his representation. In the event, respondent no. 2 allows retention, the petitioner shall be repatriated to parent subsidiary within one week from date without further 7 reference. Till such decisions, status of petitioner’s lien in parent company shall be maintained. 22. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. No order as to costs. 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Smita Das De, J.)