Mumtaz Ali vs State Of H.P. & Anr

 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Claiming a right to be transferred from present place of posting to a convenient place/station, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant

of following substantive relief:

“a) to issue writ of mandamus or direction in nature thereof directing the respondents to consider representation Annexure PÂ3 dated 24.2.2021, to

transfer him from present place of posting i.e. Kanoongo Circle, Pajhota, to some other place situated in warm/hot area, keeping in view the clause 5.5

of Transfer policy as well as health condition of petitioner.â€​

It would be noticed that it was only in December 2019 that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Patwari to that of Kanoongo and

transferred to Pajhota, where he is still serving. However, the only ground, on which the instant petition has been filed, is that since the petitioner is

nearing retirement, therefore, in terms of transfer policy, more particularly, clause 5.5 thereof, he is entitled to be posted at a convenient place/station,

subject to vacancy.

Clause 5.5 of the transfer policy reads as under:

“Concessions to officials likely to retire: In case of ClassÂIII and ClassÂIV officials likely to retire within two years, as far as possible, should be

posted in the convenient places/stations, subject to vacancy.â€​

Having perused the aforesaid clause, we are clearly of the view that such clause does not come to the aid of an employee, who has been promoted

as it is more than settled that an employee on promotion normally cannot serve at the same station and is essentially required to be transferred.

That apart, it would be noticed that the petitioner, after being immediately promoted, had preferred a representation dated 24.2.2020 (Annexure PÂ​‐

3) and the only ground taken therein was that his medical condition was being aggravated at a cold station, whereas today, it is fairly submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that it was way back in 2019 that the petitioner had suffered a paralytic stroke, but the condition thereafter has not

aggravated.

In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the instant petition is clearly not maintainable and is dismissed as such, so also the

pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.