IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Geetu Ram ... Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. None for respondent No.3.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (oral)

1. Instant petition has been filed seeking setting aside of order dated 08.04.2025, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sonipat to Panchkula.

2. The petitioner at present is working with the respondents as a Superintending Engineer. He is posted at Sonipat. By the impugned order, he has been transferred to Commercial Back Office, UHBVNL, Panchkula.

3. On 16.04.2025, the following order was passed :

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sonipat to Panchkula and is currently working as a Superintending Engineer. He submitted that although transfer is an incidence of service and a prerogative of the employer, who may transfer any employee but the discretion has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and not arbitrarily.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the history of the petitioner from the year 2015, which has been reproduced in a tabulated form in para No. 2 of the petition wherein it is shown that from the year 2015 till date, the petitioner has been transferred at least about 13 times, some of which had tenures of only a few months and in this way he had been made a shuttlecock being moved from time to time but he never assailed the aforesaid transfers because of the aforesaid reason that transfer is an incidence of service. He submitted that now when the petitioner is at the fag end of his career and is about to attain the age of superannuation on 31.08.2026 regarding which only 16 months are left and he is posted at Sonipat and has been directed to be transferred vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) to Panchkula. There is no justification with regard to the same since the discretion has to be exercised by the employer in a reasonable manner.

He further submitted that the petitioner has a mother of the age of 80 years, who is suffering from multiple ailments and the petitioner himself is also suffering from a medical condition of Sleep Disordered Breathing (SDB) & hypoventilation with (Severe) Obstructive and Central Sleep Apnea leading to (Severe) Oxygen desaturation and sleep fragmentation with good response to PAP Therapy for which he is undergoing continuous treatment. In support of this, a ‘Split Night Sleep Report’ has been attached as Annexure P-6. He submitted that due to his breathing trouble at night, he needs to be taken care of by his wife and if he is transferred to Panchkula at this stage, his mother who is of the age of 80 years, is also suffering from multiple ailments, will be left alone. He further submitted that be that as it may, there is no justification for transferring the petitioner at this stage especially when he has a clean service record as reflected in his ACRs from the year 1999 onwards, all of which are marked as ‘Good’, ‘Outstanding’, or ‘Very Good’.

Learned counsel also submitted, on specific instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, that the petitioner has an unblemished service record. Although some charge sheets were issued against him about 7-8 years ago, regarding which he has been exonerated and now only one show cause notice is pending against him, which does not pertain to any allegations of embezzlement, but relates to the wrongful uploading on the portal. He also referred to the policy of the government of the UHBVNL vide Annexure P-1/A which provides that when one year of service is left before retirement, the officer should not be transferred except on his own request. However, the petitioner h