SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(HP) 108

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, J.
ROSHAN LAL & ORS.
Applicants-petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF H. P. & ORS
Respondents
CWP(T) No. 3219 of 2008 (OA No.175 of 2002)
Decided on 5-03-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the appellants-petitioners:Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. &
Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G.

The main legal point established is that transfer is an incidence of service, and the power of transfer can be exercised by the employer unless there is an express bar or restraint. The transfer must be bonafide, rational, and in public interest, and employees do not have a vested right to continue in the same place of posting.

Headnote:

Transfer - Administrative Exigency - Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Rule 17 - Public Interest - Power of Transfer - Circle Cadre - Home District - Vested Right - Rational Classification - Bonafide Transfer - Incidence of Service - Last Come First Go - Seniority - Promotional Prospects

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, employees of the H.P. Public Works Department, challenged their transfer from Shimla Division to other Divisions on the ground that they were in Circle cadre and no option/consent for their transfer outside the Circle was obtained. The State transferred them due to administrative exigency and surplus staff, adjusting them at vacant places along with their posts.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the transfer was in public interest and rational, as it was based on administrative exigencies and the employees were transferred to their home District. The Court vacated the interim order and dismissed the petition with costs.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the transfer, the employees' vested right to continue in the same Circle, and the rationality of the transfer based on administrative exigencies and public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that transfer is an incidence of service and can be exercised by the employer unless there is an express bar or restraint. The transfer was found to be bonafide, rational, and in public interest, and the employees had no vested right to continue in the same Circle. The principle of 'last come first go' was found inapplicable as the employees were not retrenched, and they were granted liberty to agitate their seniority and promotional benefits separately.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, vacated the interim order, and awarded costs to the respondents.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, J.-The petitioners herein have prayed for the following relief:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 18.1.2002, Annexure A-6, may be quashed and set aside qua the applicants and they may be allowed to continue in their present cadre i.e. HPPWD 4th Circle, Shimla -3.

(ii) Record of the case may also be called for the perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(iii) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted.

(iv) Costs of the application may also be awarded.”

2. Annexure A-6 is the office order dated 18.1.2002 transferring the petitioners from Shimla Division No. III, of the H.P. Public Works Department to other Divisions of the same Department, in and outside Shimla.

3. The petitioners were engaged on work charged basis with the State of Himachal Pradesh. With the passage of time, they were regularized and petitioners No.1 & 2, S/Shri Roshan Lal and Sardip Singh were brought on regular cadre as Telephone Operator w.e.f. 5.2.1990 and petitioner No.3 Shri Kirpa Ram was brought on regular cadre as telephone attendant w.e.f. 1.1.1995. In the year 1995, the posts of Telephone Operator and Telephone Attendant were clubbed with that of Receptionist and S/Shri Roshan Lal and Sardip Singh were confirmed as such on 5.2.1990 and Shri Kirpa Ram was confirmed w.e.f. 1.1.1995.

4. The State of Himachal Pradesh framed “Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Receptionist Work Charged brought in regular cadre in the department of Public Works Himachal Pradesh” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). In terms of Rule 3(a), Receptionists are in Circle cadre. However, Rule 17 specifically empowers the State to relax any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons or post.

5. Vide impugned order dated 18.1.2002 (Annexure A-6), petitioner No.1 Shri Roshan Lal was transferred from Shimla Division-III to 1st Circle, Mandi; petitioner No.2 Shri Sardip Singh was transferred from Shimla Division-III to 8th Circle, Hamirpur and petitioner No.3 Shri Kirpa Ram was transferred from Shimla Division-III to Electrical Circle, Shimla.

6. It is this order which has been impugned primarily on the ground that the petitioners are in Circle cadre and no option/consent for their transfer outside the said Circle was obtained. It is also contended that in the event of any administrative exigency necessitating transfer due to the staff having been rendered surplus, persons junior to the petitioners ought to have been transferred outside the Circle.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were deployed in the Metropole MLA Hostel, Shimla to run the telephone exchange and due to the installation of automatic telephone exchange by the H.P. Vidhan Sabha , some of the staff had been rendered surplus.

8. The State being a model employer in its wisdom, rather than dispensing with the services thought it prudent to transfer/adjust the employees outside the Circle. The matter was deliberated at the highest level in the Government and it was so found that out of 18 working Circles within the Himachal Pradesh PWD, the total sanctioned posts of receptionists were 56 and only 49 of them were functional or had been filled up. Out of these 56 posts, in Circle 21 there were 21 sanctioned posts whereas 25 receptionists were working. The matter was further deliberated and it was decided that keeping in view the sanctioned strength vis-à-vis the functional posts the services of 7 surplus receptionists working in the Metropole Sub Division (Circle 21) be transferred to places where no receptionists were working at the relevant time. Accordingly, Shri Roshan Lal was ordered to be adjusted against the 1st Circle, Mandi where neither a sanctioned post existed nor was any person working. Similarly, Shri Sardip Singh was ordered to be posted in the 8th Circle, Hamirpur where there were two sanctioned posts but no one was working on them and Shri Kirpa Ram was sent to the Electrical Circle, Shim

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top