IMPORTANT POINT
Mandatory and uniform application of Transfer Policy, fair and objective exercise of discretion in employee transfers.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

1. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:

“(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations dated 06/07.12.2023 and 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-1 & P-2) submitted through proper channel vide diary No. 2167 and 2221 respectively, when the petitioner has completed his normal tenure in tribal area at DAO Officer Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District, Kinnaur, H.P. when the petitioner's daughter aged about 1½ years and the mother is suffering from medical ailments, in view of the fact that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure and has given 05 stations of his choice in 03 Districts & there is no one to look-after the family of the petitioner, in the interest of law and justice.

(b) That the respondents may be directed to transfer the petitioner from DAO officer Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, Distinct Kinnaur, H.P. (tribal area) against any one of the station of his choice as mentioned in the representations, which reads as under:

(i) DAO Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.

(ii) Ayurvedic Hospital Bassi, District Bilaspur, H.P.

(iii) DAO Office Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

(iv) District Ayurvedic Hospital Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

(v) SDAMO Office Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.”

4. In the background of the prayer so made, case of the petitioner is that petitioner is working as Junior Office Assistant (IT) in the office of District Ayush Officer, Kinnaur since 17.12.2020 which is a categorized tribal area in terms of existing transfer norms and policy. The petitioner though initially appointed on contract basis on 17.12.2020, was regularized by the respondents, at the same station. That being so, the petitioner had completed normal tenure two winters and three summers in the aforesaid tribal area and once the petitioner has completed the requisite service in the tribal area, therefore, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be considered for posting at a soft area or station of choice in terms of Clauses 12, 15 and 16.1 of the Transfer Policy. In the background of the provisions of Clauses 12, 15 and 16.1 of the Transfer Policy, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation to the Director of Ayush, Shimla Himachl Pradesh on 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) indicating five stations of choice in terms of the mandate of clause 15(i) of the Transfer Policy.

5. Though, the representation has been made but the same has neither been considered nor any order whereof has been conveyed to the petitioner till date.

6. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that representation dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure-P2) is still pending therefore, the same shall be examined within a stipulated period.

7. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances referred to above, this Court disposed of the instant writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2- Director of Ayush, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla to consider/examine the representation dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) and then to pass appropriate orders, in the light of Clause 12, 15 and 16.1 of the Transfer Policy and the mandate of law in the case of Savita vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Infra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two weeks from today.

8. While deciding the matter/ claim of the petitioner, this Court hopes and trusts that the respondents shall take into account the mandate of the judgment passed by this Court, in CWP No. 8483 of 2023, titled as Savita vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, decided on 4.11.2023, reads as under:

“11. This Court cannot refrain itself from observing that Claus