Bhup Singh vs State Of H. P. & Anr

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

i) That the writ in the nature of the certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the office order dated 03.06.2021 i.e. Annexure P-

1

ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department to allow the petitioner to work at GSSS-

Sidhyani, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that his transfer has been effected on the basis of D.O. note. The record, which has been produced pursuant

to our directions, reveals that the petitioner himself is the beneficiary of the D.O. note, therefore, in such circumstances, he is not entitled to any relief

in terms of the repeated judgments rendered by this Court.

Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1387 of 2021, titled as Parveen Kumar vs.

State of H. P. and Ors., decided on 31.03.2021, wherein it was observed as under:-

“13. Indeed, transfer is an incidence of service and government employees are supposed to be transferred and posted anywhere in the

State . The transfers of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 4 are effected after the approval of the competent authority. The petitioner,

earlier managed his posting at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, and now he has been transferred from Nabahi, after completion of his normal tenure,

so he has no right to say that transfer of respondent No. 4, effected on the basis of D.O. Note, is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. In fact,

transfer of the petitioner has no tinge of malafides, neither without public interest nor vitiated, being against the settled Transfer Policy, as

transfer is an incidence of service. Moreover in Sanjeev Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 4208 of 2020, decided

on 22.12.2020, this Court has held as under:

“9. This Court in CWP No. 4063 of 2019, titled Smt. Anita Rana and Anr vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on

31.12.2019, has specifically held that a recipient /beneficiary of DO note cannot approach this Court ventilating the grievance that he /she

has been transferred on the basis of DO Note. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant observations made by a Coordinate Bench in

order dated 31.12.2019, which reads as under:-

“We have heard this matter for some time and also perused the record produced by the office of respondent No. 2. It is seen from the

record that on the D.O. Note, the transfer of petitioner No. 1 has been proposed to be cancelled. Meaning thereby that she is also recipient

of D.O. Note, hence not justified in ventilating the grievances that she has been transferred on the basis of D.O. note. Therefore, the writ

petition qua her deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to her to make a representation either for

cancellation of her transfer or adjustment at some suitable place, if so advised.â€​

Since it is apparent that the petitioner, on earlier occasions, got himself posted at stations of choice on the basis of UO Notes, petition

praying therein for quashment of impugned order is not maintainable at all. However, having taken note of the fact that both, petitioner and

respondent No.3, have been repeatedly exerting political pressure to get themselves posted at stations of their choice, we dispose of this

petition by directing respondents to transfer both, petitioner and respondent No.3, to some other places in the State, especially where both

of them have not served till date, within two weeks.â€​

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

Record produced by the respondents are ordered to be returned.