Amar Singh vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, Managing Director, Bias Valley Power Corporation Ltd., Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, Private Secretary Office of Chief Engineer (Op.) Central Zone, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Additional Private Secretary in the office of Bias Valley Power Corporation Ltd.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge

Petitioner joined respondent-Department on 18.12.1985 as Steno-typist and was posted at Rong Tong Hydro Project, Rangrik, Kaza, District Lauhal and Spiti. He was transferred in the year 1987 to Gaj Hydro Project, Chari Garoh, Near Dharamshala. He remained posted at Shimla for 5 years, Sarabai, Bhunter, District Kullu for a period of 3 years. He also remained posted at Ghanvi Hydro Project, Jeori, Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur. He was transferred vide order dated 2.6.2010 from the office of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Tuti Kandi, Shimla to the office of Managing Director, Bias Valley Power Corporation, Jogindernagar, District Mandi. He joined in the office of Managing Director, Bias Valley Power Corporation, Jogindernagar, District Mandi on 4.6.2010. Now, the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Managing Director, Bias Valley Power Corporation, Jogindernagar, District Mandi to the office of Chief Engineer (ES), H.P.S.E. B.L. Hamirpur vide order dated 23.5.2012. Respondents No. 3 and 4 though served, neither they are present nor are they represented by any counsel.

Petitioner has to superannuate on 30.6.2013. He has not completed two years at Jogindernagar, District Mandi. Respondent-Board has framed its own principles for effecting transfers of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board''s employees on 29.9.2008. Clause 10 whereof reads thus:

For the Officers/Officials likely to retire within two years, efforts should be made to give them postings in the areas as convenient as possible subject to vacancy.

It is settled law by now that the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited. However, the power to transfer an employee is coupled with duty to ensure fairness and reasonableness. In the instant case, petitioner has only worked in the office of Managing Director, Bias Valley Power Corporation, Jogindernagar, District Mandi for a period of less than two years. He has to superannuate within a period of one year since his date of retirement is 30.6.2013. According to clause 10 of the principles for effecting transfers of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board''s employees, reproduced hereinabove, for the officers/officials likely to retire within two years, efforts should be made to give them postings in the areas as convenient as possible subject to vacancy. According to clause 17, normally an officer/official should not be transferred from a station until and unless he/she completes minimum three years of service. Though, this condition would not apply where transfers are required on administrative grounds or on request of an employee on medical grounds. Petitioner has not completed 3 years at the present place of posting as per clause 17 of the transfer scheme. No administrative exigency or public interest has been shown in the reply necessitating the transfer of the petitioner from Jogindernagar to Hamirpur. Thus, the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of clause 17 of the scheme. Petitioner ought not to have been transferred since he has less than one year to retire and the efforts should have been made to post the petitioner at convenient place to mitigate the hardship. Clause 10 has been incorporated to ameliorate the hardship of the employees, who are at the verge of the retirement. Employer has to take humane approach while dealing with the employees, who are at the verge of retirement.

Ms. Anjula Khajuria has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner has been made pursuant to judgment of this Court in CWP No. 550 of 2011-A titled Pawan Kumar versus H.P.S.E.B. and another, decided on 12.1.2012. The impugned order is dated 23.5.2012. No reason has been mentioned in the reply why the judgment was implemented after a period of five months. It is made clear that petitioner was not a party in CWP No. 550 of 2011-A. Only respondent No.3 was the party in this writ petition. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 dated 23.5.2012 is quashed and set aside. Respondent-Board is directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duties at Jogindernagar. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.