Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent/Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. (IPGCL) seeks the relief of quashing of the transfer order dated 23.10.2012 by which petitioner''s services were transferred to another company namely Pragati Power Corporation Limited (PPCL). Petitioner in essence states that since he has been originally appointed and continued as an employee of the respondent/IPGCL, his services cannot be transferred to a totally separate entity/company namely PPCL. On behalf of the respondent, it is argued in support of the transfer order that there has been an in-principle decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent/IPGCL and the PPCL to merge the two companies, and which merger is in the process, however, in my opinion, till the merger is complete in terms of a statutory process or under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner will continue to be an employee only of his employer company viz. the respondent/IPGCL and his services cannot be transferred to a separate employer/company i.e., PPCL.
2. Of course, after merger petitioner''s services can always be taken as the services to the merged company and thereafter he can be placed on such duties in accordance with law in the merged company, but today once they are separate entities and petitioner is an employee of the respondent/IPGCL, his services cannot be placed with another entity/company/PPCL.
3. The only other method in which the services of the petitioner could have been transferred to the other company/employer is, if as per the terms of the appointment of the petitioner there was a clause that his services could be deputed by the respondent/IPGCL to any other organization, however, there are no terms of appointment which are placed before this Court and nor any service rules of the respondent/IPGCL that the services of an employee of the respondent/IPGCL can be placed at disposal of any other government company or organization against the Will of the petitioner/employee.
4. Merely because the respondent/IPGCL chooses to maintain now a common seniority list of its employees as also the employees of PPCL, the same will not confer any legal entitlement to pass the impugned transfer order dated 23.10.2012 inasmuch as PPCL as of date is a separate entity than the respondent/IPGCL. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned transfer order dated 23.10.2012 is quashed. The petitioner will continue to work with the respondent/IPGCL and at any of the jobs and at any places of work of the respondent/IPGCL. I clarify that once the merger of IPGCL with PPCL is complete, then, at that stage, the continuation of the present judgment will stand effaced and the petitioner''s service thereafter will be taken in terms of the services rules of the new company which will come into existence after merger of the PPCL with the respondent/IPGCL. No costs.
