Ajit Dhiman vs State of H.P. and others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 20.5.2013. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 14.5.2013, the Government has now taken a decision of accommodating the petitioner at the post, which is lying vacant in Kangra Sub Division itself.

It is seen that even though three posts of Work Inspectors are lying vacant at Sub Division, Palampur, but however, petitioner cannot be posted there, on account of administrative exigencies. The decision has been taken at the Government level.

Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited our attention to the judgment dated 6.5.2013, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 610 of 2013, titled as Chander Mohan Chauhan versus H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & others, and connected matter, wherein the Court has allowed the petitioner therein to continue to discharge his duties at his original place of posting, considering the fact that he was to superannuate on 31.7.2014. Significantly, in the said case, the Court on the given facts, did not accept the contention of the respondents-State that the order was necessitated due to administrative reasons. The Court took into account Clause (e) of paragraph-3 of the Transfer Policy framed by the State.

In the instant case, we find that petitioner has been working in District Kangra itself. He was posted as a Work Inspector and continued to remain posted in Palampur Division for more than 9 years 6 months; in Baijnath Division for more than 2 years 9 months; and then again brought back to Palampur Division, where he again worked for more than 7 years. Except for a brief period of 2 years 9 months, petitioner always remained posted in Palampur Division throughout his service career.

Respondents justified the impugned order of transfer dated 5.2.2013 (Annexure P-4), posting the petitioner out of Palampur Division and sending him to Jawali Division. It was only on the asking of the Court, considering overall attending circumstances, that the respondents re-looked into the matter and have now accommodated the petitioner at Kangra, which is just 25 kms from Palampur. Palampur and Kangra are on the National Highway and are well connected by public transport.

For administrative reasons, petitioner cannot be posted at Palampur and we do not find any fault in the decision now taken by the Government. Prior to superannuation, an employee has a right, in terms of the Transfer Policy to be considered for adjustment at a station of his choice, if there is a post lying vacant or there is no other impediment. Administrative exigency is positively a factor which has to be taken into account while implementing such Policy.

As such, for all the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.