Employees have the right to be considered for retention at the same station or convenient stations unless the transfer was ordered in public interest and administrative exigencies.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):-

“(i) Impugned office order dated 31-10-2023 (Annexure p-1) may kindly be quashed.”

4. The petitioner joined service in Jal Shakti-IPH Department, as a Work Inspector in December, 2006. On 27.08.2018 the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer in Respondent-Department and he served as such, in Jal Shakti Division, Dharamshala and then in Jal Shakti Division Shahpur, Sub-Division Kangra on 26.11.2021 i.e. at the present station.

5. Now, as per orders dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been transferred from Jal Shakti Division Shahpur (Sub-Division Kangra) to SNP Division No.I, Terrace SNP Sub-Division Ghandran, without TTA/JT.

6. The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) on the ground (i) that the petitioner has completed only two years and two months of stay at Shahpur; (ii) the transfer has been ordered on the basis of DO Note No.86525, dated 27.10.2023 as mentioned in Para 6 of the writ petition; (iii) transfer is contrary to the mandate of Clause 5.4 whereby, the couple spouses are to be adjusted at the same or convenient stations; (iv) transfer has been ordered without TTA when, petitioner has not made any request for such transfer; and (v) the transfer order though mentions, public interest, but in fact, the same has been ordered on extraneous considerations, which is alleged to be malafide, arbitrary and not in spirit of law.

7. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned State Counsel, submits that the transfer orders have been issued after due approval of the Competent Authority and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be transferred anywhere as has been done, in the instant case.

8. Be that as it may, once the transfer orders, on the face of it as referred to above, has been ordered on the basis of a DO Note and not in conformity with Clause 5.4, then, the petitioner has a right to be considered for retention at same station or convenient stations, in the peculiar facts of the matters, unless the transfer was ordered in public interest and administrative exigencies. At this stage, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he may be permitted to ventilate his claim by way of a representation, before the Competent Authority. The prayer, being innocuous, is not opposed by learned State Counsel and is accordingly granted in the interests of justice.

9. In entirety of facts and circumstances, as referred to above this Court, permits the petitioner to make a representation to Respondent No.2-Engineer-in- Chief, Jal Shakti-IPH Department, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, within two weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider/examine the same and pass appropriate order(s) in the light of the mandate of law which vitiates the transfers so made on the basis of DO Note; and also in the light of Clause 5.4 of the transfer norms, within four weeks thereafter.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the issuance of transfer orders dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner as well as private respondent No.4 has not joined their respective postings, at new places till day.

11. In this view of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant interim protection to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the impugned Office Order dated 31.10.2023, (Annexure P-1), transferring the petitioner from Jal Shakti Division Shahpur (Sub-Division Kangra) to SNP Division No.I, Terrace SNP Sub-Division Ghandran, (District Kangra) shall remain stayed, till the decision of the representation.

12. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted