SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HP) 295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Arun Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others. - Respondents
CWP No.8575 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shubham Sood, Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashist, Mr. Anup Rattan with Mr. B.C. Verma.

IMPORTANT POINT
Transfers should be based on public interest and administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations from unauthorized persons.

Headnote:

Transfer - Employee Rights - Comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013, Transfer Policy - [The judgment discussed the application of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013, Transfer Policy, and the legal principles governing the transfer of employees. It highlighted the exceptions permitting judicial intervention and the role of elected representatives in recommending transfers. The court emphasized the need for transfers to be based on public interest and administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations from unauthorized persons.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Driver in the Respondent Corporation, sought to quash the transfer order dated 27.10.2023, alleging that the transfer was based on extraneous considerations and not on public interest or administrative exigencies. The petitioner contended that the transfer adversely affected him and was not justified under the law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer was based on a written recommendation from an unauthorized person, lacking cogent material substantiating public interest and administrative exigencies. The court held that the transfer order was vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness, and malafide, and set it aside.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the transfer order, the role of elected representatives in recommending transfers, and the adherence to the Comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013, Transfer Policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that transfers should be based on public interest and administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations from unauthorized persons. It highlighted the need for an independent and impartial application of mind by the transferring authority, and the adherence to the prescribed procedures for transfers.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned transfer order dated 27.10.2023, emphasizing that the transfer was vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness, and malafide. The respondents were directed to transfer the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law and the principles discussed in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

The petitioner, a Driver in the Respondent Corporation has filed the instant petition, seeking the following relief(s):-

    i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, quashing the Office Order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) qua the Petitioner (Ser.no.3), for all intents and purposes.

ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit by directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as Driver at HRTC unit Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Public Interest.

iii) That the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) are assailable on other grounds also which would be submitted at the time of hearing of this case.”

2. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver, on contract basis, (non-transferrable) in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Nahan Unit on 9.10.2017. His services were regularized in the same capacity and at the same place on 27.07.2021. While the petitioner was working in Nahan Unit, the respondent no 2 directed the petitioner to look after the work at Sarahan Bus stand w.e.f 31.10.2023. However, the Respondent no 1 issued an order dated 27.10.2023, Annexure P-5, transferring the petitioner from Nahan Unit to Reckong -Peo (District Kinnaur).

3. The petitioner has assailed the transfer orders dated 27.10.2023, Annexure P-5, on the ground that (i) transfer has been ordered merely to give effect to the written recommendation-D.O-UO Note No 70700, dated 15.09.2023 given by respondent No.4 (Ms. Dayal Pyari)-who is a social and political person; (ii) transfer ordered under the garb of public interest was issued only to give effect to the wishes of private respondent no 4 as reflected in the aforesaid recommendation-DO, amounts to passing the impugned order on extraneous considerations which is perverse, arbitrary and malafide; and (iii) transfer has adversely affected the petitioner resulting in hardship as he is suffering from ailment which is borne out from Annexure P-7; and (iv) transfer made during mid academic session of studies of children who are to appear in examinations is contrary to the mandate of law. In this background, Mr C N Singh, learned Counsel submits that the entire decision making process, including its genesis {DO given by respondent no 4), the ipso-facto approval thereof; and the inaction of the appointing-transferring authority in acceding to such a DO and approval without applying its mind to twin preconditions of public interest and administrative exigencies, as per him, vitiates the decision making process and the impugned orders also.

4. Upon issuance of notice on 6.11.2023, the respondents were directed to produce the records pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner. The matter was then listed on 7.11.2023 when the Respondent-State, who was in possession of the approval for transfer was also directed to produce the records. On 16.11.2023, though the records were not produced and therefore, the same were directed to be produced on 30.11.2023. Thereafter the matter was listed on various dates and in the background, the same is now taken up today.

5. Today, {on 10.1.2024}, the records pertaining to the transfer have been produced. The records reveal that the impugned orders dated 27.10.2023, Annexure P-5, transferring the petitioner from Nahan Unit to Reckong-Peo Unit, was issued on the basis of approval given by the Competent Authority (Hon’ble CM) dated 26.09.2023.

In the above backdrop, and in order to examine the veracity of the approval dated 26.9.2023 granted by competent authority as well as impugned transfer orders so issued, this Court advanced a query to Mr. Anup Rattan Learned Advocate General, to point out and satisfy this Court as to what was the genesis or foundational basis or material substantiating public interest and administrati

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top