Back
2008 Supreme(Jhk) 1059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Rajesh Kumar – Appellants.
Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On : 02.09.2008
Premature transfers of government servants require valid reasons based on administrative exigency and special circumstances, in compliance with the State Government's transfer policy.
Headnote:
Transfer - Government Servant - Rule 21 - Administrative Exigency, Right to Information Act - [Rule 21, Right to Information Act] - The court quashed the transfer order of a government servant from one place to another, highlighting the lack of administrative exigency and special circumstances reflected in the transfer order. The court emphasized the need for valid reasons for premature transfers and the importance of following the transfer policy of the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, challenged his transfer from Ramgarh to Dumka and the subsequent transfer of respondent No. 8 from Dumka to Ramgarh within a short period. The petitioner alleged mala fide intention and lack of administrative exigency in the transfers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfers lacked administrative exigency and special circumstances, as reflected in the transfer orders and note sheets. It noted the absence of valid reasons for the premature transfers and emphasized the importance of following the State Government's transfer policy.
Issues: Validity of transfer orders lacking administrative exigency, mala fide intention, compliance with transfer policy
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that premature transfers of government servants require valid reasons based on administrative exigency and special circumstances. It emphasized the need to adhere to the State Government's transfer policy.
Final Decision: The court quashed the transfer orders, citing lack of administrative exigency and non-compliance with the transfer policy. No costs were awarded.
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
2. The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer holding class-II gazetted post in the State Government, has challenged the issuance of Annexure-10, i.e. the notification dated 3.4.2008, issued by the Rural Development Department, transferring him from Ramgarh (Dumka) to Work Sub-Division-II, Dumka in place of Sayed Zamil Asgar, respondent No. 8 herein and the respondent No. 8 who was posted in Works Sub-Division-II, Dumka has been transferred to Ramgarh (Dumka) in place of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after serving in various capacities at various places, he was transferred and posted on the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Works Sub-Division Dumka-II vide notification dated 27.12.2006 and the respondent No. 8 Zamil Asgar was posted as Assistant Engineer work Sub-Division Ramgarh. The petitioner joined on his transferred post and started functioning there.
4. Further case of the petitioner is that on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee vide notification dated 31.12.2007 vide Annexure-1, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Ramgarh (Dumka) whereas by similar notification dated 31.12.2007, respondent No. 8 was transferred from Ramgarh and posted as Assistant Engineer R.E.O. Works Sub-Division Dumka-II at Dumka. The petitioner joined at Ramgarh on 21.2.2008, but since the respondent No. 8 was not handing over charge to him and as such by issue of Annexure-4 dated 6.1.2008 the Executive Engineer directed the petitioner to relinquish the charge of previous posting Le. of Dumka and assume charge at Ramgarh. Accordingly the petitioner assumed charge at Ramgarh on 7.1.2008, which was duly accepted by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner also drew salary from there at Ramgarh.
5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 8, who initially did not obey the annual transfer order dated 31.12.2007, subsequently joined at Dumka on 14.2.2008.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that within a period of three months from the date of his joining at Ramgarh, he has 'been again transferred back to Dumka from Ramgarh by issue of Annexure-10 to Works Sub-Division at Dumka and the respondent No. 8 has been brought back to Ramgarh from Dumka vide notification dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure-10).
7. Being aggrieved by the order of re-transfer, the petitioner applied for supply of the documents relating to his transfer from Dumka to Ramgarh under the Right to Information Act and the petitioner was supplied the copies of the note sheets as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
8. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of Annexure-9, i.e. the note sheet of the Department, it would be clear as to how and under what circumstances the notification contained in Annexure-10 has been issued with mala fide intention only to accommodate the respondent No. 8 at the instruction of the Minister In-charge of Rural Engineer Organisation. He further submitted that though the transfer of the petitioner was seriously objected to by the Secretary of the Department, but overruling all the objections, the impugned notification, Annexure-10 has been issued at the instance of the Minister in most illegal and arbitrary manner without even recommendation of the Establishment Committee. Mr. Sinha further submitted that no doubt transfer of a Government servant from one place to another is an exigency of the service but in case the Government decides to transfer a Government servant prematurely, i.e. before completing the normal period of stay at one station, then in that case, as per the policy decision, it can be done only in administrative exigency on the basis of need and urgency of work and under special circumstances and those reasons should be reflected in the transfer order. It is
