Mool Chand Chhabra vs State of Haryana and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—By this order two writ petition Nos. 11103 and 11722 of 1993 are being disposed of as common question of law has been raised. The judgment is prepared in Civil Writ Petition No. 11103 of 1993.

Mool Chand Chhabra-petitioner was working as Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee, Karnal. Vide order dated August 30, 1993, Annexure P-1, he stood transferred as such to Panipat Municipal Committee. This order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the transfer order has not been passed by the competent authority. The Haryana Municipal Services Integration Recruitments and Conditions of Services Rules, 1932, deal with the subject. Rule 2 (3), defines the appointing authority of different employees as per appendix ''C attached thereto. An item No. 44 of that appendix provides that for Sanitary Inspector, the appointing Authority would be Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that the transfer, if any, could be effected by the Deputy Commissioner and that too within the District.

On notice of motion having been issued, in the written statement filed by the respondents, it is asserted that in fact under Rule 13 employees of one Municipal Committee could be transferred to other Municipal Committee outside the district. Rule-33 on which reliance has been placed, provides as under:-

"Liability of Transfer:

I. A member of the State Level or District Level Service shall be liable to serve at any place in the State of Haryana or the District as the case may be.

II. A member of the District Level service may be transferred outside the district, if it is considered expedient in the public interest.

III. A member may be transferred to another Municipal Committee of a different class provided that scales of pay in both the committees at the same."

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that no case for interference is made out. Then impugned order has been passed by the Director Local Bodies, Haryana, who is Head of the department and he would be competent to transfer the employees from one district to another, as contemplated under Rule 13 (supra). It has also been pointed out that the transfer of the petitioner would not be in the public interest. This contention cannot be accepted. The general orders have been passed effecting several persons. Some of the employee have been appointed at places where the vacancies already existed. In other writ petition, Vinod Kumar, stands transferred from Cheeka to Nilkheri against a vacant post. When persons are to be appointed against vacant posts, it would be obviously in the public interest as posts can be kept vacant and the persons appointed in their places would be like-wise in the public interest. Furthermore, it may be observed that on transfer, they are not going to lose seniority in the parent districts. On transfer, they are to get the same pay scale. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.