AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyen Vaidya, J
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:-
“(i) That the impugned notification dated 13.01.2022 at Annexure P-2, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from HPPWD
Division Barsar, District Hamirpur to E.E.(D), O/o HPPWD Chief Engineer Kangra may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may
kindly be allowed to complete his normal tenure at the present place of posting.â€
Petitioner has sought quashing of his transfer order dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) on the ground firstly that his transfer has been effected after
a short stay of 18 months and secondly, that he is due to retire on 31. 03.2023 i.e. within next one year and two months. It has been contended on
behalf of the petitioner that impugned transfer order has been effected only to accommodate respondent No.2 who has obtained a D.O. Note from a
local politician. The transfer has been effected during ban period and without condonation of short stay and thus smacks of legal malafides and vice of
arbitrariness.
Respondent No. 2 has filed reply and has stated that the petitioner himself has been recipient of D.O Notes on earlier occasions and hence petition
is not maintainable. Petitioner is Class-I Officer and hence cannot avail benefit of not being transferred within two years before date of retirement,
which concession is available to Class-III and Class - IV employees. It has also been submitted by the private respondent that he has already joined at
the place of his posting on 17.01.2022.
The official respondents have placed on record copies of D.O. Notes procured by the parties and consequent E.O. Notes issued thereon.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4063 of 2019 titled as Smt. Anita Rana and another vs. State of H.P and others vide order dated
31.12.2019 has specifically held that the recipient/beneficiary of D.O. Note cannot approach this Court ventilating his grievance that he/she has been
transferred on the basis of D.O. Note. It has further been held that when the petitioner himself has been recipient of a D.O. Note on earlier
occasions, his petition for quashing of orders of transfer on the ground of D.O. Note being procured by somebody else cannot be held to be
maintainable.
In the present case, though D.O. Note dated 3. 12.2021 has been issued by the Member of Legislative Assembly, Bharmour constituency,
recommending transfer of respondent No.2 to HP PWD Division, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. vice petitioner which has resulted in issuance of
E.O. Note, it is also evident from the documents produced by the respondent-State that the petitioner himself has been recipient of D.O. Notes on
earlier occasion for seeking his adjustment/transfer. On one occasion the D.O. Note was issued by the Member of Legislative Assembly, Himachal
Pradesh and on another, it was issued by the Member of Parliament and both times these D.O. Notes culminated in issuance of E.O. Notes in favour
of the petitioner. In view of this fact situation, the instant case is covered by the judgment passed in Anita Rana’s case supra. Hence, the petition
on behalf of petitioner being himself a recipient of D.O. Notes on more than one occasion is held to be not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Principal Division Bench of this Court on 24.10.2018 in CWP
No. 1863 of 2018. Perusal of the said judgment reveals that the same was passed in entirely different facts. The implication of issuance of D.O.
Notes on the transfer of the employees of Government of Himachal Pradesh was neither considered nor decided in the said judgment, therefore,
petitioner cannot derive any benefit therefrom.
In view of the discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed being not maintainable. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.