Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Tek Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Executive Director & Anr. - Respondents
CWP No. 4414/2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025
(A) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission directives - Rationalization of posts - Transfer of employee justified based on organizational restructuring and employee cost reduction measures mandated by HPERC. (Paras 4(i) and 4(ii))
(B) Administrative discretion - Employer's right to reorganize business and staff based on operational needs and public interest is upheld. (Paras 4(i)(e) and 4(v))
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his transfer from Sundernagar to Una after 11 months of service, arguing that longer-serving employees were retained. The Board justified the transfer as part of a rationalization process to reduce employee costs.
Findings of Court:
The court found the Board's reasons for the transfer justified and aligned with sound administrative practices.
Issues: The main issues included the justification for the transfer and the Board's discretion in employee adjustments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Board's rationalization process was valid and that the employer has the right to reorganize staff based on operational needs.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Petitioner is currently serving as Circle Head Draughtsman (Electrical) and forms part of Drawing Cadre in the Respondent-State Electricity Board.
i) Petitioner instituted Tek Singh Vs. Executive Director (Pers.) Vidyut Bhawan, H.P. & Ors, [CWP No. 2418/2025 decided on 22.03.2025]. against office order dated 06.02.2025 whereby he was transferred from the office of SE (D) P/House Elect. HPSEBL Sundernagar to SE (OP) Circle, Una. The grounds for assailing the aforesaid order were that:-
Transfer had been made after 11 months of petitioner’s stay at the current place of posting; Petitioner had not been allowed to complete his normal tenure at Sundernagar; The incumbents having longer stay atSundernagar had been retained, whereas the petitioner had been transferred.
ii) The Board’s stand in the aforesaid writ petition was that the impugned order had been passed on account of rationalization of posts undertaken by the Board. Not just the petitioner, but several other incumbents had also been transferred in the process of rationalization.
iii) Vide interim order dated 17.02.2025, operation of impugned order was stayed qua the petitioner. On 11.03.2025, when the matter was next taken up, learned counsel for the respondent- Board submitted that the Board was willing to consider the case of petitioner for his adjustment as per common instructions dated 06.03.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to furnish his representation to the Board, which was to be decided by the Board within the time-line indicated in the order.
iv) The respondent-Board considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Taking note of these developments, the writ petition was closed on 22.03.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as may be available to him for the redressal of his surviving grievances.
It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has now instituted this writ petition assailing the rejection order passed by the respondent-Board on 21.03.2025. The substantive relief prayed for by the petitioner reads as under:-
“a. That writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned transfer order dated 06-02-2025 and representation rejection order dated 21.03.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua petitioner.
b. That writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work, as a Circle Head Draughtsman in the office of Chief Engineer Generation, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP.
c. That direction may kindly be issued to consider petitioner's case for adjustment in the office of Chief Engineer (OP), Mandi Zone, HPSEBL Mandi where the post of CHDM is lying vacant as incumbent posted here has been promoted vide office order dated 22.03.2025.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has also placed on record instructions dated 26.03.2025. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up today for consideration.
4. Consideration.
4(i) Respondent Board’s main plank for justifying transfer of the petitioner from Sundernagar to Una is the ‘rationalization’ process being undertaken by it.
The respondent-Board in the impugned order has given following justification for rationalization;-
(a) The Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC) in its tariff orders has issued directives to the Board for curtailment of the employees as the employees cost in the respondent-Board is stated to be one of the highest in the country.
(b) The HPERC has identified some of the offices/units of the Board that have become redundant in view of technological advancements and/or the services which can be easily outsourced. The HPERC has pointed out that many of Board’s offices namely Design, PLCC, M&T, P&T, S&I etc. have become redundant and directed the Board to come up with a road
The court upheld the employer's right to transfer employees as part of a rationalization process aimed at reducing operational costs, affirming the validity of administrative discretion in staffing d....
The court upheld the transfer of the petitioner based on the Board's rationalization process, affirming the administrative discretion in staffing decisions.
Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and interference with transfer orders should be limited to cases of mala fides or violation of specific provisions.
The court affirmed that transfer orders are administrative decisions and should not be interfered with unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
Point of law: Transfer is an incident of service and that a government servant is liable to the transferred to a similar post in the same cadre.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; absence of a defined transfer policy renders such orders arbitrary, necessitating formulation of a policy.
Transfer of service is a prerogative of the authorities, and judicial intervention is limited unless mala-fides are established.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
