Harinder Singh vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Through Its

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive relief:

"that appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 27.9.2021 may very kindly be quashed and set aside with further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform duties as Superintendent (Grade -II) at Electrical System Division Totu and in the alternative the respondents may very kindly be directed to transfer the petitioner to Electrical Division Nahan taking into account his ensuing superannuation within a period of 2 years, in the interest of law and justice."

The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent -Board in the year 1992 and thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Later, vide office order dated 30. 6.2020, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent (Grade-II) and ordered to be transferred from Electrical Sub Division Bagthan under Electrical Division Nahan to Electrical Sub Division Totu, Shimla. The petitioner joined at Totu on 14. 7.2020 and vide office order dated 29.9.2021, has been ordered to be transferred to Boards Secretariat, Shimla vice respondent No.2, Ranju Sharma.

On the other hand, respondent No.2 ever since her appointment in the year 1998 and despite three promotions has only served in Shimla and even now while she was ordered to be transferred from Electrical System Division Totu to Boards Secretariat Shimla, has been accommodated against the interest of the petitioner by posting her at Electrical System Division Totu.

If this was not enough, the official respondent has been over enthusiastic in contesting the case knowing fully well that its action is absolutely illegal and smacks of favouritism and nothing more.

The official respondent has gone to the extent of preparing statement of incumbency of the petitioner, but would not disclose the incumbency of respondent No.2, who, as stated above, has served only in Shimla.

The Central Government, State Governments and unlike all public sector undertakings are expected to function like a model employer. The model employer is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected candour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer, has social obligation to treat its employees in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit its employees and take advantage of their helplessness and misery.

In the present case, conduct of the official respondent is reprehensible and falls short of expectation of a model employer and to say the least, the official respondent has indulged in favouritism thereby driven the petitioner to unnecessary and avoidable litigation.

It needs to be noticed that transfer of respondent No.2 was ordered to be effected within stone's throw distance, yet she again managed to have modified the transfer and stayed in a comfort zone.

Since the impugned transfer order has been effected not on account of administrative exigency or public interest, but on favouritism, the same cannot sustain and is ordered to be quashed and set aside.

Normally, in the given facts and circumstances, we would have passed mandatory direction to the official respondent to transfer respondent No.2 to a far flung and remote area, so that she could understand the pangs of separation along with discomfort and distress, which normally an government employee undergoes when transferred from his/her comfort zone, however taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.2 is due to retire shortly, we desist from passing any order for the time being, however in case the official respondent contemplates to transfer Superintendent Grade-II, then it will be first respondent No.2, who shall be transferred outside Shimla District.

Before parting, we need to observe that the role of the respondent-Board as a model employer has been deliberated upon by us with the fond hope that in future a deliberate disregard is not taken recourse to and deviancy of such magnitude is not adopted to frustrate the claims of the genuine employees. It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair.

Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful by playing a game of chess, that too, entrenched in favouritism. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized. We leave it at that.

The instant petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.