IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
Brij Lal Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
CWP No. 2427 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2021
Transfer - Government Employee - Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, Notification dated 23.07.2020, Notification dated 19.11.2020 - 8, 10, 11 - The court discussed the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, Notification dated 23.07.2020, and Notification dated 19.11.2020, which imposed a ban on transfers and provided specific circumstances for transfers. The court emphasized that transfer is an incidence of service and the authority has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject to certain disciplines. It also highlighted that the power to transfer must be exercised honestly, bonafide, and reasonably, and should be based on public interest. The court cited various judgments to establish the legal principles governing transfers and emphasized that the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited.
Fact of the Case:
The government imposed a ban on transfers and issued specific guidelines for transfers. Despite the guidelines, frequent transfers were being made, leading to a flood of litigations. The court noted that transfer is an incidence of service and emphasized the authority's unfettered powers to effect transfer subject to certain disciplines. The court also highlighted the violation of transfer guidelines and the flood of transfer-related litigations in the courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government's transfer guidelines were being violated, leading to a flood of transfer-related litigations. It emphasized the unfettered powers of the authority to effect transfers and the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters.
Issues: The issues involved the violation of transfer guidelines, the flood of transfer-related litigations, and the scope of judicial review in transfer matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the authority's unfettered powers to effect transfers subject to certain disciplines and highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order of transfer dated 05.04.2021, emphasizing that the transfer did not withstand judicial scrutiny as it was not based on administrative ground/public interest or exigency of service.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
It was the Government itself, which vide letter dated 20th July, 2019, had imposed complete ban on transfers with clear stipulations that no transfers or adjustments would be ordered by any Departments/Boards/Corporations/ Universities etc. during the ban period without obtaining the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister to the concerned Minister-in-Charge, that too in the circumstances specifically provided under para 8 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, circulated vide OM No.Per(AP-B)-E(3)- 17/2012, dated 10.07.2013, which reads as under:-
(i) To fill up the required posts lying vacant in tribal/difficult/hard area which need immediate filling up in the public interest or such functional posts in the absence of which the work is suffering.
(ii) To fill up the vacancies arising on account of retirement, promotion and new creation.
(iii) In the cases where employees are transferred on account of disciplinary proceedings/vigilance cases/criminal proceedings etc.
(iv) To fill up the vacant posts in view the administrative exigencies.
(v) In the cases of exigencies and on administrative grounds as well as priorities of the Government, by recording reasons in writing, the condition of short stay and short distance can be condoned.”
2. After issuance of the aforesaid notification, it was noticed by the Government that despite the instructions frequent transfers in other eventualities were being made by the various Departments/Boards/Corporations/Universities were still being made in violation of the instructions. Therefore, the State Government vide its notification dated 23.07.2020 decided to impose complete ban on transfers and directed that no transfer or adjustment shall be ordered by the Departments/Boards/ Corporations/Universities during the ban period except in rarest of the rare cases i.e. only on extreme medical grounds or on administrative exigencies that too with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister through the concerned Minister-in-Charge in accordance with the Comprehensive Guiding Principles dated 10.07.2013.
3. The aforesaid instructions were thereafter modified vide notification dated 19.11.2020 by continuing the ban on general transfers and permitting transfers only on the following eventualities that too with the prior approval of the competent authority:-
(i) To fill up vacant posts in tribal/difficult/hard areas;
(ii) To fill up vacancies arising out of retirements, promotions and creation of new posts;
(iii) Transfers necessitated on account of disciplinary matters, vigilance cases, criminal proceedings etc.;
(iv) In cases involving administrative grounds and exigencies.
4. It would, however, be noticed that despite these instructions, the transfers are being effected by flouting and violating these guidelines with impunity, as a result whereof, the Courts are flooded with the litigations of transfer.
5. Despite the law on the subject being well settled, yet we find the same is being violated with impunity either by the political executive or by the administrative authority, constraining the employees to have initially approached the Administrative Tribunal and on its closure, this Court, unnecessarily clogging its docket.
6. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. Once it is admitted that the petitioner is State government employee and holds a transferable post then he is liable to be transferred from one
Airports Authority of India vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey 2009 (8) SCC 337
M. Sankaranarayanan, IAS vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
N. K. Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.
Sant Ram Pant vs. State of H.P. and others
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. S. S. Kourav & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.