Gurmukh Singh vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Arun Monga, J

Grievance of the petitioner stems out of an order dated 14.01.2025 (Annex.8) vide which he has been transferred from Hanumangarh to Kalyanpur (Balotra). He is serving as an Assistant Engineer in the electricity discom company of the state/respondent no.1. Allegation is that he has been subjected to frequent transfers, which is violative of transfer policy of the department, apart from the hardship of his now having to relocate about 450 kilometers (Hamumangarh to Kalyanpur). Hence, this petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

First and foremost, ever since his appointment, the petitioner has continuously been working on the post in question in the same district for past twelve years. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order on that ground alone.

That apart, transfer being matter of administrative exigency, this Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a case of either patent violation of law or extreme hardship. Moreover, to transfer or not to transfer an official, is sole discretion of the employer based on the administrative exigencies. Rather, transfer is an integral part of service conditions of a government employee arising out of the administrative exigencies. Such orders are not to be treated as punishment or a promotion.

Case in hand does not seem to be such that the petitioner is suffering any extreme hardship of the nature warranting interference by this Court. The petitioner has remained in Hanumangarh for 12 years, which far exceeds a reasonable tenure at a single location. A government employee cannot claim an absolute right to remain posted at a particular location indefinitely.

The petitioner’s claim regarding "frequent transfers" within Hanumangarh does not invalidate the present transfer order. Internal adjustments within at the same location/district do not preclude a subsequent transfer to another location. The petitioner has not cited any provision of law which has been violated.

As already observed, transfers are an inherent part of government service and fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. This Court has consistently held that they should not be interfered with unless there is clear illegality/violation of statutory provisions, or mala fide intent or any victimization. Extraordinary hardship, of course, is an exception to the usual judicial restraint to avoid unnecessary intervention in administrative functions. Mere inconvenience of relocating 450 kilometers within same circle of the Nigam/discom (petitioner has been transferred in same circle i.e. Jodhpur-which is constituted by 10 districts), that too in the same State, and/or personal preference cannot override administrative necessity. Service conditions envisage that transfer can be anywhere within the circle.

In the premise, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his cause with respondent no.1 in case there is any vacant post in any alternative district where he can be accommodated, and dismissal of instant petition shall not be construed as an impediment in case administrative exigency permits change of transfer location of petitioner.

All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.