Rattan Chand vs HP State Electricity Board Ltd.

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following relief:

(i) That the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 (Annexure P-1), may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to complete his normal tenure at the present place of his posting.

Impugned order of transfer dated 12.10.2011 reads as under: -

HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD (A STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING)

OFFICE ORDER NO.475/HPSEBL (SECTT) 2011.

DATED 12.10.2011

The following transfer and posting of CHDM (Elect.) are hereby ordered with immediate effect.

Sr. No.

Name

From

To

1.

Sh. Ravinder Singh

O/o SE (Design) P/H(E) Sundernagar

Operation Circle, Solan vice Shri Rattan Chand

2.

Sh. Rattan Chand

Operation Circle, Solan

O/O SE (Design) P/H (E) Sundernagar Vice Sr. No. 1

Sh. Rattan Chand, CHDM(E) will be entitled to TTA and usual joining time as admissible under the rules whereas Shri. Ravinder Singh CHDM(E) will not get the same.

Sd/- Executive Director (Personnel), H.P. State Electy. Board Ltd., Shimla-4

No. HPSEBL (SECTT)/FTE-1/343-5-01-77678-83 dated 12.10.11

On 14.10. 2011 Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

Notice to the second respondent. In case the petitioner has not been relieved or in case the second respondent has not joined duty, further proceedings for relieving the petitioner shall be deferred for the time being. Needless to say that in which event, the parties will work at the respective places prior to the date of transfer. Post on 4.11.2011.

The same is still in operation

Quite apparently, transfer is on the asking of private respondent as no TTA/joining time has been allowed in his case. Pursuant to orders of transfer, private respondent joined on 13th October, 2011. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 fairly states that before private respondent could join, petitioner was not relieved. Was this permissible in law? How two persons were allowed to continue on the same post at the same time, are questions which need to be looked into by respondent No. 1. Consequential action shall be taken against the erring official(s).

Ms. Charu Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal,

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find that interference of this Court is warranted. There has been deviation from the policy consistently followed by the respondent. It is not in dispute that petitioner was posted at Solan on 26.11.2009. Within a short span of one year ten months and that too in mid session he was shifted out. Respondents have not shown the administrative exigency or public interest involved in effecting such transfer. It is not the case of respondent No. 1 that petitioner is possessed with special qualification or is expert and his services are required, on urgent basis or would be more beneficial at Sundernager. Prima facie, it appears that the order has been passed only to accommodate private respondent. Petitioner has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure of posting, as per the guidelines/instructions followed by respondent No. 1. Private respondent was shifted from Sundernagar to Solan within a short span of 10 months and without any justification. It is also alleged that private respondent belongs to District Solan and has been posted in Solan, in violation of the Policy followed by the Board.

As such, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.10.2011 (Annexure P-10) is quashed.

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.