Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, JJ.
Praveen Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWP No. 1387 of 2021
Decided On : 31-03-2021
Service Laws – Transfer – Petitioner has laid challenge to transfer/Office Order, whereby he has been transferred from GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, to GSSS Barang, Mandi. – Petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Arts), has been transferred through Annexure P-1 from GSSS Nabahi, Mandi to GSSS Barang, Mandi, and respondent No. 4, who is also TGT (Arts), replaced him. Purportedly, respondent No. 4 managed a D.O. Note in his favour, whereupon he was transferred and as sequel the petitioner was disturbed. – It is further contended that respondent No. 4 has been transferred from his last place of posting by condoning his short stay. Furthermore, the transfer of the petitioner has been effected amidst academic session, in violation of Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 of Transfer Policy. – Petitioner also took aid of some ancillary grounds for laying challenge against the impugned transfer order (Annexure P- 1), viz., his mother is 72 years’ old cardiac patient, he is only helping hand to her, his transfer is neither in public interest nor in exigency of service. – Lastly, petitioner has prayed that the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-1), being an aftermath of D.O. Note issued in favour of respondent No. 4, be quashed and set-aside. – Held, Transfer is an incidence of service and government employees are supposed to be transferred and posted anywhere in the State. – Transfers of petitioner and that of respondent No. 4 are effected after the approval of competent authority. – Petitioner, earlier managed his posting at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, and now he has been transferred from Nabahi, after completion of his normal tenure, so he has no right to say that transfer of respondent No. 4, effected on the basis of D.O. Note, is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. – In fact, transfer of the petitioner has no tinge of malafides, neither without public interest nor vitiated, being against the settled Transfer Policy, as transfer is an incidence of service. – Net result of above discussion is that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure of three years at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, and he got himself transferred to Nabahi on the basis of a D.O. Note. Now, when the petitioner, after completion of his normal tenure at Nabahi, has been transferred, he cannot be allowed to lay challenge against his transfer, be it effected by an incumbent, procuring a D.O. Note. – Petitioner, who himself is a beneficiary of D.O. Note, now, cannot portray himself to be victim of D.O. Note. – In fact, the petitioner has no right to challenge his transfer, as he has completed his normal tenure at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi. – Impugned transfer order (Annexure P-1) is neither an outcome of malafides, nor illegal/bad in the eyes of law, as the petitioner cannot claim to remain posted throughout his service at one place only. – Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
1. This is one more of the perennial disputes between two politically heavyweight government employees qua their vice-versa transfers. Resultantly, by medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to transfer/Office Order, dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, to GSSS Barang, Mandi.
2. The facts giving birth to the instant petition can tersely be encapsulated as under:
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Arts), has been transferred through Annexure P-1 from GSSS Nabahi, Mandi to GSSS Barang, Mandi, and respondent No. 4, who is also TGT (Arts), replaced him. Purportedly, respondent No. 4 managed a D.O. Note in his favour, whereupon he was transferred and as sequel the petitioner was disturbed. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 has been transferred from his last place of posting by condoning his short stay. Furthermore, the transfer of the petitioner has been effected amidst academic session, in violation of Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 of Transfer Policy. The petitioner also took aid of some ancillary grounds for laying challenge against the impugned transfer order (Annexure P- 1), viz., his mother is 72 years’ old cardiac patient, he is only helping hand to her, his transfer is neither in public interest nor in exigency of service. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-1), being an aftermath of D.O. Note issued in favour of respondent No. 4, be quashed and set-aside.
3. Conversely, respondents No. 1 to 3/State, by way of filing an extensive reply, resisted and denied the claim of the petitioner. As per respondents No. 1 to 3, the petitioner has been posted at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, since 04.10.2017 and vide impugned transfer order, dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) he has been transferred to GSSS Barang, Mandi, and in his place respondent No. 4 was transferred. As per the official respondents, transfer is an incidence of service and all the employees working under the State Government are liable to be transferred and posted anywhere in the State. Moreover, the petitioner has been transferred after due approval of the competent authority, only when he completed his normal tenure at GSSS, Nabahi, Mandi. It is further averred in the reply that the petitioner got himself transferred from GSSS Khuddi Khahan, Mandi, to GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, by procuring a D.O. Note, so he has no right to assail the impugned transfer order on the ground that present transfer is an upshot of D.O. Note issued in favour of respondent No. 4. Lastly, it is prayed that the extant writ petition, being devoid of merits, be dismissed.
4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder, resisting the stand taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 and reiterating the averments made in the petition. Precisely, it is contended in the rejoinder that the petitioner cannot be transferred only on the basis of D.O. Note issued in favour of respondent No. 4, so his transfer is neither in public interest nor in the exigency of service. It is further contended that mother of the petitioner is widow and an old lady suffering from Hypothyroidism hypertension, atrial Flutter- 2:1 block, sero negative rheumatoid arthritis with osteoporosis and advised regular treatment both by Army Hospital as well as IGMC, Shimla. It is contended that the it is difficult for the petitioner, considering the Covid pandemic, to take his mother for regular checkups to hospitals from his current place of posting. Therefore, in view of the averments made in the petition as well as in the rejoinder, the petitioner is seeking that the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-1) be quashed and set-aside.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and gone through the records.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that transfer of resp
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
