Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Arun Kainthla - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another - Respondents
CWP No. 7622 of 2023
Decided On : 04-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sanjeev Bhushan, Narender Singh
For the Respondents: Leena Guleria, Neeraj Gupta, Ajeet Pal Singh
The transfer of employees must adhere to established policies, ensuring fairness and avoiding favoritism based on unsubstantiated complaints.
Headnote:
(A) Transfer Policy - The transfer of Ayurvedic Medical Officers is governed by the applicable Transfer Policy, which mandates that no employee has a vested right to remain in a particular posting indefinitely. (Paras 1, 5)
(B) Complaint Basis - The justification for transfer based on complaints must be substantiated and cannot be arbitrary or biased. (Paras 4(iv)(a), 4(iv)(b))
(C) Equal Treatment - The State must ensure equitable treatment of employees under similar circumstances, avoiding favoritism. (Paras 4(iv)(b))
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his transfer from GAHC Jakhu to GAHC Sanarsa, alleging manipulation by respondent No.2, who was initially transferred to Sanarsa but did not join. The petitioner claimed that the transfer was unjustified and based on a baseless complaint against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the transfer order was unjustified and quashed it, directing a fresh assessment of the transfer of both officers.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the transfer order and whether the basis for the transfer was legitimate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that both officers had no vested right to remain in Shimla and that the transfer policy must be applied fairly without favoritism.
Result: The impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
1. Petitioner and respondent No.2 both are serving as Ayurvedic Medical Officer (‘AMO’), a Class-I Gazetted post falling under the State Cadre. Both of them are pitted against each other in their desperate effort to remain stationed within Shimla town. This plum posting is currently being enjoyed by both of them for years together as if it is their vested right to remain in Shimla.
2. Dispute in the writ petition:
(i) Respondent No.2, serving as AMO in Government Ayurvedic Health Centre (‘GAHC’), Kaithu (Shimla), District Shimla, was ordered to be transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, vide notification dated 29.08.2023. Respondent No.2 did not join at the transferred station, i.e. GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla.
(ii) Respondent No.1 issued another notification on 30.09.2023 whereunder, in place of respondent No.2, the petitioner, serving as AMO at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, was transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla. Consequently, in the same notification respondent No.2, who was originally transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, was adjusted at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, i.e. in place of the petitioner.
(iii) Feeling aggrieved against his transfer from GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, petitioner instituted this writ petition on 10.10.2023 seeking following substantive reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No.1 and thereby allow the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at the present place of posting i.e. Ayurvedic Health Centre Jakhu (Shimla), District Shimla, H.P. in the interest of justice.”
(iv) The writ petition was listed before the Court on 11.10.2023, when it was adjourned to 12.10.2023, and thereafter to 13.10.2023. The requests for adjournments were made for the petitioner. On 13.10.2023, submissions were made for the petitioner that he was victim of manipulation and manoeuvre by respondent No.2, who had been able to stall her transfer from Shimla to Sanarsa on the basis of political interventions. For clarifying these allegations, original record pertaining to the impugned transfer order was directed to be produced before the Court on 17.10.2023. Following order was passed on 19.10.2023, stayed the impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-1):-
“Records perused.
There is prima facie material on record to show that the impugned notification/office order dated 30.09.2023 is result of a U.O. Note issued from the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister. But there is nothing on record to suggest that what is the basis for issuance of such note.
Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there is a complaint against the petitioner. However, the record does not reveals that the U.O. Note, as noticed above, has been issued, taking into consideration the alleged complaint against the petitioner.
Petitioner is able to make out a prima facie case.
The impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 ( Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Notice be issued to respondent No. 2, returnable on 16.11.2023. Steps be taken within three days. In the meanwhile, respondents may file detailed reply.
Record returned.”
(v) In view of interim order dated 19.10.2023, petitioner is presently continuing to serve at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla.
To a query of the Court that once the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 has been stayed and resultantly, petitioner is to discharge duties at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, then at which place respondent No.2 is discharging her duties, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 apprised that she is also serving as AMO at GAHC Jakhu, Shimla.
Learned Deputy Advocate General has apprised that there is only one sanctioned post of AMO at GAHC Jakhu, Shimla, where both the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are serving.
3. Submissions:
(i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits tha
