IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Surinder Paul – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 9723 of 2023
Decided On : 04-12-2023
Transfer Policy - Employee Transfer - Clauses 12 and 16 of the Transfer Policy - CWP No. 1105 of 2006, Sushila Sharma vs. State of H.P. - CWP No. 2114 of 2018, Sunil Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - CWP No. 9029 of 2023, Kartar Singh vs. State of H.P.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a TGT (Non-Medical), was seeking transfer from a rural area to a soft area in accordance with the Transfer Policy. The petitioner's representation for transfer was contested by the respondents based on the number and location of stations indicated in the representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation with additional stations of choice in soft areas. The court directed the respondent to decide the representation within a specified time frame, adhering to the Transfer Policy and previous court judgments.
Issues: Discrepancy in the petitioner's representation for transfer and the respondent's contestation based on the Transfer Policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair and equal treatment of employees, non-discrimination, and non-arbitrariness in state action as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court also highlighted the obligation of the state to ensure timely and fair transfers in accordance with the Transfer Policy and previous court judgments.
Final Decision: The court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for transfer and directed the respondent to decide the representation within a specified time frame, considering the Transfer Policy and previous court judgments.
JUDGMENT :
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
1. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the orders intended to be passed herein.
3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:
(b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide and consider representation of the petitioner as per law and policy in time bound manner.”
4. Case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as a TGT (Non-Medical), on contract basis, in GSSS Lakadhar, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, which is a remote/rural area on 11.11.2019. While working at the said place, the petitioner was regularized in April,, 2022. Consequently, the petitioner is working at the same station.
5. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the mandate of Clauses 12 and 16 of the Transfer Policy issued by the State Government on 10th July, 2013, as amended from time to time, an employee is required to serve for two winters and three summers in the rural/remote area in terms of the policy. Despite having completed the requisite normal tenure in the aforesaid rural/remote area, the respondents have transferred to soft area, despite representation dated 03.08.2023, Annexure P-1, whereby, in Para-3, the petitioner has indicated six stations of choice therein.
6. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that a perusal of the representation dated 03.08.2023, Annexure P-1, reveals that the petitioner has indicated five stations in Para-3 of the representation, which are in one District, whereas, five stations should have been indicated and that too more than one Districts, as per existing Transfer Norms.
7. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the representation dated 03.08.2023, Annexure P-1, indicating six stations, but as on day, some stations as indicated in the representation, have been filled-up, by way of appointment/transfer and the petitioner may be permitted to furnish fresh stations of choice in soft areas, in terms of Clause 16.1 of the Transfer Policy. The prayer so made by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, learned counsel for the petitioner, requesting to furnish additional stations, by way of fresh representation, being innocuous, is not opposed by learned State Counsel and the same, in the interests of justice, is accordingly granted.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, as referred to above, this Court permits the petitioner to make a fresh representation, within a week from today, in continuation of the earlier representation dated 03.08.2023, Annexure P-1; with directions to respondent No. 2-Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, to decide the representation dated 03.08.2023, Annexure P-1, alongwith the additional representation, indicating one additional station of choice, as referred to above, within two weeks thereafter, in consonance with Clauses 12 and 16 of the Transfer Policy and to pass appropriate orders, within four weeks thereafter, in view of the mandate of this Court in CWP No. 1105 of 2006, titled as Sushila Sharma vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 27.08.2007, which reads as under:
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for fair and equal treatment of employees, non-discrimination, and non-arbitrariness in state action as per Articles 14 and 16 of the C....
The need for fair, objective, and transparent application of the Transfer Policy to avoid arbitrariness and discrimination in state action.
Mandatory and uniform application of Transfer Policy, fair and objective exercise of discretion in employee transfers.
The court emphasized the importance of considering transfer requests in accordance with the specific clauses of the transfer policy and ensuring equal and non-discriminatory application of the policy....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair and equal treatment in transfer and posting, as mandated by the Transfer Policy clauses 12, 15, and 16.1, to avoid prolonged....
The Transfer Policy mandates that an employee who has already served in a difficult area should not be re-sent to such an area.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Clause 16.2 of the transfer policy, which allows the petitioner to make a fresh representation indicating stations of choice and....
Employees who have completed the normal tenure in hard areas have a right to be considered for posting in soft areas to avoid discrimination amongst employees.
Judicial intervention in transfer matters is warranted when decisions violate established transfer policies and principles of fairness, ensuring no arbitrary actions by authorities.
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.