130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.10.2025 Harish Chander ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) with all consequential proceedings including relieving/joining.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is due to superannuate on 31.08.2026, whereas, vide impugned order dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been transferred from District Rewari to District Mewat. The impugned action of transfer is in violation of the transfer policy.

3. Per contra, the learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the fact that the policy provides that the government employees who are due to retire within one year should ordinarily not be transferred.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case with their able assistance, it would be apposite to refer to clause (ix) of the Transfer Policy as notified in the Haryana Government Gazette, which defines a 'Protected Employee' as under:

“(ix) 'Protected Employee' means and includes:

(a) the employee due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation within 12 months from cut-off date for transfer order generation, as published at the time of transfer drive creation of the cadre; or (b) the employee undergoing treatment for cancer or undergoing dialysis or having undergone by-pass heart surgery (during last 2 years) or having undergone organ transplant; or (c) the employee having more than 70% disability (as defined under RPWD Act 2016); or (d) the employee who is a widow having youngest child upto 10 years of age...”

5. Moreover, the possibility of transfer is essentially interwoven in the service agreement, if not stated otherwise. As such, the decisions in this regard must also be taken by the relevant departments based on considerations like administrative exigencies, organizational needs as well as the cause of efficiency. Since such matters involve internal management and policy decisions particular to the employer, the scope of judicial review in this respect is fairly limited. Unless it is proved that the process was vitiated by mala fide or the same was conducted in violation of the applicable rules and regulations or the relevant order was by an incompetent authority, the Courts ought not to interfere with it. Substituting the decision of the relevant authority with its own when the former is better placed to assess the requirements of the department would be manifestly unjust. A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357, speaking through Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy made the following observations in this regard:

“7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to this transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.”

6. This approach was also reiterated by a two-Judge