Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(HP) 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIM LA
Before ( Division Bench)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
CWP Nos. 801 of 2013-A alongwith CWP Nos 802 of 2013-A, 1469 of 2013-G
and 1996 of 2013-J. Date of decision: 5.07.2013
Sanjay Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. &Connected Matter

Advocates:
For the petitioners(s):Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, in CWP Nos. 801, 802 and 1996 of 2013. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, in CWP No. 1469 of 2013.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General for respondents in CWP Nos. 801, 802 and 1996 of 2013. Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Advocate, for respondents in CWP No. 1469 of 2013.

Transfers of government employees should be made in public interest and in accordance with the applicable transfer policy. Transfers made under dictation and not for administrative exigency are arbitrary and not sustainable.

Headnote:
Transfer - Public Interest - HPPWD Act, HPSEBL Act - The court quashed and set aside the impugned transfer orders of all the four petitioners as they were found to be arbitrary and vitiated because they were issued under dictation.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged their transfers from one division to another, alleging political manipulation and lack of public interest. They argued that the transfers were not fair and were made under pressure from a local politician. The respondents contested the petitions, claiming that the transfers were made in public interest and in accordance with the transfer policy of the government.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfers were not made in public interest and were arbitrary, as they were issued under dictation and not for administrative exigency. The court also noted that the transfers did not comply with the transfer policy applicable to the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfers were made in public interest and in accordance with the transfer policy. The court also considered the influence of a local politician in the transfers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfers of government employees should be made in public interest and in accordance with the applicable transfer policy. The court also emphasized that transfers made under dictation and not for administrative exigency are arbitrary and not sustainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the petitions and quashed the impugned transfer orders, directing the original record to be returned forthwith.

JUDGMENT

Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgement shall dispose of CWP Nos. 801 of 2013-A , 802 of 2013-A, 1469 of 2013-G and 1996 of 2013-J, as common and overlapping questions of law are involved in all the petitions.

CWP No. 801 of 2013-A:

2. The petitioner has assailed his transfer vide office order dated 13.2.2013 from HPPWD Dharampur Division to HPPWD Sangrah Division against vacant post. The petitioner was regularized as Motor Mate on 15.11.2008 and was posted at Dharampur Division on 7.4.2010. It has been alleged that transfer of petitioner has been done with political manipulation and not in the public interest. He was threatened by a local politician for transfer. The State has not applied fair method while transferring the petitioner. The State has not considered the seniority of the petitioner. Some of the work inspectors have completed more than 15 years at Dharampur Division only, policy of pick and choose has been adopted for transferring the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner is 76 years old, who is under regular treatment. The petitioner is facing genuine problem. Sangrah is at a distance of 400 kilometers from Dharampur. The petitioner has been transferred under political pressure after his stay of 2 years and 10 months only at Dharampur. The transfer of the petitioner is wrong, illegal and arbitrary.

3.The respondents No. 1 to 3 have contested the petition by filing the reply. It has been stated that petitioner was appointed on 7.4.2010 as work inspector and since then he has been serving in Sub Division at Marhi, Division Dharampur. The petitioner has completed normal tenure in his present place of posting. The transfer policy of the government is in the nature of executive instructions. The transfer order dated 13.2.2013 has been issued after the approval of competent authority, who can transfer an employee at any time anywhere in the State. There is no violation of administrative rules nor any malafide is involved in the transfer of the petitioner. The submission has been made for dismissal of the petition.

4.The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 16.6.2013. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit that petitioner has been transferred on the reference of one Mr. Chandershekher a politician having affiliation with particular political party, who even contested the election of legislative assembly constituency Dharampur, Mandi, but lost. It has been stated that about 400 transfers have been made at the behest of said Mr. Chandershekher. In this context, D.Os. reference notes (collectively) Annexure A-1 has been placed on record with the supplementary affidavit. The respondents No. 1 to 4 opted not to file any counter to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.6.2013.

CWP No. 802 of 2013-A.

5. The petitioner has assailed transfer order dated 13.2.2013 from HPPWD Dharampur Division to HPPWD Salooni Division against vacant post, which is 350 kilometers away from Dharampur Division. It has been stated that petitioner was initially appointed as motor-mate on daily wages on 4.5.1998. He was appointed as work inspector in the year 2004 and was regularized on 29.1.2008 and was posted at Mandi. The transfer of the petitioner has not been done in the public interest. There are many other work inspectors working in Dharampur Division, who have not worked at any other place except in Dharampur Division. Some of them are in that Division for the last more than 15 years. The transfer of the petitioner has been done with political manipulation and no public interest is going to be served by transferring the petitioner. The petitioner was threatened by a local politician having affiliation to a particular political party. The State has not applied fair method for transferring the petitioner, policy of pick and choose has been applied. The father of the petitioner is an old man and suffering from kidney, breathing problems and is under treatment at Mandi hospital. It has been stated that transfer of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis