IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3639-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Rimpy @ Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Hunarveer Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the transfer order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-1/T) issued by respondent No.2 to the extent it transfers the petitioner who is due to retire in less than 02 years from Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar to Municipal Corporation, Kapurthala and consequently the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to serve with respondent No.3 till the date of his retirement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner joined the service as a Sweeper in the year 1995 and thereafter, earned promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector on 12.12.2023 in the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, after rendering long and unblemished service. He further submits that the impugned transfer order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-1/T) transferring the petitioner from Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar to Municipal Corporation, Kapurthala is in clear violation of the transfer policy of the Government of Punjab dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-4/T), which discourages transfer of employees who are on the verge of superannuation as the petitioner has less than two years of service remaining before his retirement on 31.10.2027. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3 itself wrote letters dated 10.09.2025 and 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-2/T and P-3/T, respectively) to the competent authorities seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s transfer on account of administrative exigencies and the necessity of retaining his services at Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, however, the said recommendations were ignored without any justification. He further contends that out of 12 Sanitary Inspectors posted at Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, about 8 to 10 officials having longer remaining service were retained whereas the petitioner was selectively chosen for transfer, thereby reflecting arbitrariness and discrimination. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner joined at Municipal Corporation, Kapurthala on 30.12.2025 only under protest and such forced compliance cannot legitimize an order which is ex facie arbitrary and contrary to the governing policy.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submit that there is no violation of the transfer policy dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-4/T). The transfer order was issued on 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-1/T), whereas the petitioner is due to retire on 31.10.2027 and therefore, he had more than two years of service left at the time of transfer. As such, the transfer policy regarding employees nearing the retirement does not apply to the case of petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further submits that transfer is a normal condition of service and the petitioner had remained posted at Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar for nearly 30 years which justified his transfer in administrative interest. He also pointed out that all seven sanctioned posts of Sanitary Inspector at Municipal Corporation, Kapurthala were vacant, and due to administrative exigency, the petitioner was posted there. Lastly, it is submitted that District Kapurthala is only about 20 kilometers away from District Jalandhar and therefore, no serious inconvenience has been caused to the petitioner.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the transfer order dated 05.09.2025 does not suffer from any illegali