ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Devanand, challenging the order of transfer dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from Jal Shakti Division Nalagarh to Jal Shakti Division Nohradhar, vice respondent No. 5, Upma Devi, both of whom were working on the post of Superintendent Grade-II.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1990 in IPH Circle Nahan, which is now Jal Shakti Vibhag Circle Nahan. According to the petitioner, he served the respondent-Department at various places, including IPH Division, Ghumarwin and Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Reckong-Peo, District Kinnaur, Dharampur etc. in his short period of service to their utmost satisfaction. He had only on 14.5.2020, joined at the present place of posting on promotion, as Superintendent at Nalagarh, but suddenly, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2020, he has been ordered to be transferred to Jal Shakti Division, Nohradhar, District Sirmaur, vice respondent No. 5, just after six months of his joining.

3. According to Mr. Varun Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the Transfer Policy of the State Government promulgated vide Office Memorandum dated 10th July, 2013, containing Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 for regulating the transfers of the State Government employees. The aforesaid Transfer Policy is quite comprehensive and an ideal Policy, if it is really implemented in the manner in which it has been framed. The petitioner has alleged that he has been transferred after a short period of six months at the recommendation of respondent No. 6, Sh. K.L. Thakur, the Ex-MLA of Nalagarh, under U.O. Note No. 258148 dated 10.12.2020, which is in violation of judgment dated 19.01.2015 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21772/2014, titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Tara Devi and Another. Learned counsel has contended that the order of transfer is made with a view to illegally accommodate private respondent No. 5, who has joined at Nohradhar only on 21.10.2020 and continuously remained on leave for two months and finally managed through respondent No. 6 to be transferred herself again to Nalagarh.

4. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner is a heart patient and regular visitor of PGI, Chandigarh, which place would be approximately more than 150 Kilometers away from the new place of his posting at Nohradhar, District Sirmaur. It would be difficult for him to manage the follow up treatment from there. It is further alleged that respondent No. 5 remained posted at Nalagarh for almost 15 years i.e. from 2007 to 2021. It is argued that this Court, while issuing notice of the writ petition, was persuaded to stay operation of the impugned order of transfer, but despite that respondent No. 5 has not been relieved from the transferred station and sent back to her previous station. Learned counsel also argued that this Court on 23.09.2021, while modifying the stay order dated 17.12.2020, granted liberty to the respondents/State to issue fresh transfer order, but that was intended to permit the respondents/State to transfer private respondent No. 5 alone to any other place. There was no intention to disturb the petitioner from Jal Shakti Vibhag, Nalagarh, where he was posted only six months ago.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court, passed in Tara Devi’s case (supra), wherein the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.01.2013, in CWP No. 5351 of 2012, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P. and Others, was upheld. This Court in the aforesaid judgment, while taking note of Clause 17 of the aforementioned Transfer Policy, held that: “No transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particul