Dinesh Kumar vs State of H.P. and others

Rajiv Sharma, Judge

Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure P-3, whereby he has been transferred from I & PH Section Behli to I &PH Section Kangoo.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner has remained posted in his home Sub-division/Section since 1992 till regular appointment in 2007 and the issuance of impugned order dated 3rd September, 2011 (Annexure P-3). It is true that the petitioner has been working in his home Sub Division/Section since 1992, but now he has been transferred to a place called Kangoo, which is at a distance of 150 kms. from I & PH Section Behli. Petitioner belongs to a lowest strata of the society and is a Class-IV employee. Normally, the persons belonging to Class-IV category should not be transferred to a distant place until or unless there is extreme public interest or administrative exigency. There is no material on the record to suggest even remotely what public interest would be achieved by transferring the petitioner to a place, which is at a distance of 150 kms. from his present place of posting. It is also laid down in the guidelines framed by the respondent-State that as far as possible, Class-IV employees should be posted near to his/her native place/home town.

In view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-3, dated 03.09.2011 is quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to the respondent-State to transfer the petitioner, but not beyond a distance of 25 kms. from his present place of posting. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.