Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 878
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Dr. Vikram Katoch - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWP No.13490 of 2024
Decided on : 02-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate
Transfers of government employees must be justified by administrative exigency and public interest, not merely to accommodate individuals.
Headnote:
(A) Administrative Law - Transfer of Government Employees - The impugned office order dated 20.11.2024 transferring the petitioner from Tiara, District Kangra to Barsar, District Hamirpur to accommodate respondent No.3 was challenged - The petitioner argued that the transfer lacked administrative exigency and was solely to benefit respondent No.3, who had a history of remaining posted in District Kangra. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Legal Principles - Transfers should be based on administrative needs and public interest, not merely to accommodate individuals. (Paras 3(i), 4(ii))
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was transferred after serving less than a year at Tiara, while respondent No.3 had been serving in District Kangra for over a decade. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the transfer order was issued solely to accommodate respondent No.3, who had not joined his promoted post and had a history of local postings. (Paras 4(i)(a), 4(iii))
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer was justified based on administrative exigency and whether it was appropriate to accommodate respondent No.3 at the expense of the petitioner. (Paras 3(i), 4(ii))
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer order was set aside as it was not based on legitimate administrative needs but rather to accommodate respondent No.3, who had served in the same district for an extended period. (Paras 5)
Result: The impugned office order dated 20.11.2024 is set aside, and the case for transfer is to be reconsidered. (Para 5)
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Petitioner and respondent No.3 are contesting this case to remain posted as Block Medical Officer (BMO) Tiara, District Kangra. Petitioner feels aggrieved of office order dated 20.11.2024 that transfers him from Tiara, District Kangra to Barsar, District Hamirpur, making way for posting of respondent No.3 in his place. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Sequence of orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 leading to issuance of impugned office order:-
2(i). Vide office order dated 17.09.2024, respondent No.3, serving as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Shahpur, District Kangra, was promoted to the post of Block Medical Officer. On such promotion, respondent No.3 was posted as BMO Sangla, District Kinnaur.
2(ii). Respondent No.3 did not join at Sangla, District Kinnaur. To accommodate him, respondent No.1 issued another office order on 07.10.2024, whereby he was adjusted as BMO Shahpur, District Kangra vice one Dr. Kavita Thakur, who, in turn, was transferred from Block Shahpur, District Kangra to Block Jaisinghpur, District Kangra.
2(iii). It appears that Dr. Kavita Thakur did not vacate her post at Block Shahpur, District Kangra. She did not join at Block Jaisinghpur, District Kangra. Respondent No.3, therefore, could not be accommodated at the place occupied by Dr. Kavita Thakur. Resultantly, respondents No.1 and 2 issued another office order on 10.10.2024, cancelling the transfer/adjustment of respondent No.3 ordered on 07.10.2024.
2(iv). Respondents No.1 and 2 next issued impugned office order on 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), transferring respondent No.3 to the place occupied by the present petitioner, i.e. Tiara, District Kangra and to make way for respondent No.3 to join at the transferred station, the petitioner was transferred from Tiara, District Kangra to Barsar, District Hamirpur.
Petitioner feels aggrieved against his transfer from Tiara, District Kangra to Barsar, District Hamirpur.
3. Submissions:-
3(i). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had joined at Tiara, District Kangra on 08.11.2023. He had put in just about one year at the time of issuance of the impugned transfer order. Apart from the ground of short stay of the petitioner at Tiara, District Kangra, it was also submitted that the petitioner has been transferred without there being any administrative exigency or public interest, but only in order to accommodate respondent No.3. This submission has been made on the basis of series of office orders issued by respondents No.1 and 2 to accommodate respondent No.3, which have been noticed in para supra.
Another ground taken is that respondent No.3 has remained posted in District Kangra during his entire service tenure till date. It was also highlighted that in the year 2013, respondent No.3 was posted at Civil Hospital Shahpur, District Kangra. He was transferred to PHC Seun under Block Shahpur & remained there w.e.f. 05.11.2018 to 10.01.2022 and thereafter was again posted at Civil Hospital Shahpur from 10.01.2022 till his promotion as BMO on 17.09.2024. The distance between Civil Hospital Shahpur and PHC Seun is just about 3-4 kilometers, or in other words, respondent No.3 has served within a distance of 3-4 kilometers ever since the year 2013. Vide impugned office order dated 20.11.2024, respondent No.3 has been brought to Tiara, which is at a distance of just about 17 kilometers from Shahpur.
3(ii). Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 was facing adverse circumstances inasmuch as his mother, aged 76 years, had suffered a stroke (CVA) on 13.05.2024. His son is studying in 10th standard from a school located at Dharamshala. The examinations thereof are scheduled in February/March, 2025. Hence, respondent No.3 had made a request for adjusting him near around Dharamshala. His request was accepted by the competent authority and consequently, the impugned office order was issued.
4. Consideration:-
4(i)(a). Learned Additional Advocate G
