In the absence of a policy providing for transfer and posting at the place of choice or closer to the home, the court had no jurisdiction to intervene in the executive's domain.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - Challenging the transfer order dated 26-02-2018 (Annexure P-1) and another order dated 24-06-2019 (Annexure P-3) directing to report for duty, a Senior Lab Technician has come up before this Court, seeking mandamus to quash both these orders. Director of Health Services, Shimla, HP, who is second respondent, vide order dated 26-02-2018 transferred the petitioner Sangat Ram, Lab Technician from Primary Health Center (PHC), Anni to Primary Health Center, Nither under BMO Nirmand, vice Sh. Mehar Dass, who is fourth respondent, on mutual basis, with immediate effect, without Traveling Allowances for Transfer (TTA) and Joining Time (JT).

2. Somewhat after this, the petitioner wanted his posting at PHC, Kungush, and the department gave concession, and posted him on deputation at PHC Kungush for a period of one year, w.e.f. 25-05- 2018. After the expiry of the deputation period, vide order dated 24-06-2019, the Block Medical Officer, Nirmand, Distt. Kullu, (respondent No.3.) relieved the petitioner from duty at PHC, Kungush, and directed him to report for duty at the original place of posting i.e. PHC, Nither under BMO Nirmand, with immediate effect.

3. The petitioner represented the second respondent and brought to his notice that he is a patient of paralysis, and in view of his disease it would be difficult for him to survive at Anni, at a distance of 60-70 kms from his home, and requested the second respondent to depute him at PHCKungush, which is 4-5 kms away from his home, so that his family can take care of him.

4. Without waiting for any response from the second respondent, the petitioner came up before this Court by filing the instant petition on August 21st , 2019, for seeking cancellation of transfer, and issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent to complete his normal tenure of 3 to 5 years at the present place of posting, i.e. PHC-Kungush.

5. We have heard Mr. P.P.Chauhan, learned counsel, for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned counsel, for respondent No.4.

6. The petitioner has come up with two fold contentions, firstly that his transfer was shown without TTA and JT, as clearly mentioned in order dated 26-02-2018, on mutual basis, which is contrary to the grounds because he had never sought his transfer on mutual basis, and secondly he being a person with disability, securely covered under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (after now called Disability Act), and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (after now called Disability Rules), he is entitled to posting at the place of his choice and nearer to his home.

7. To answer first contention vide transfer order dated 26-02-2018 (annexure P-1), issued by Additional Director Health Services, HP, it was clearly mentioned in it that the transfer is viceversa on mutual basis, and both incumbents will not be entitled for TTA/JT. After this, the petitioner never raised his grievance that order dated 26-02-2018 was without his consent, but requested for deputation. The department conceded to his request and posted him on deputation for one year, w.e.f. 25-05-2018, vide annexure P-3. Even after that when the petitioner made representation for his posting nearer to his home, vide annexure P-4, he never raised his grievance that he never consented for mutual transfer.

8. Sh. P.P.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the transfer order it is clearly mentioned that he is transferred vice-versa on mutual basis, but his consent was never taken. Therefore, it is implied that the petitioner has never given his consent. This submission is mis-conceived.

9. Whenever any employee raises such a grievance that the transfer of mutual consent did not have his signatures, he is expected to raise his grievance at the earliest point of time. Not only that, such employee can file complaint against the beneficiary, replacing her, and can als