Satya Parkash Sharma vs State of H.P. and Others

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

I) That the order dated 13.5.2011 contained in Annexure P-1 qua the Petitioner and Annexure P-3 dated 2.6.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the Petitioner.

II) That the Respondents may be directed to accommodate the Petitioner against vacancy as has been observed by this Hon''ble Court vide its order dated 20.5.2011 and reconsider the case of the Petitioner sympathetically.

III) That the Respondents be directed to adjust the Petitioner against the vacancy pointed out by the Petitioner till the vacancy is not filled up by joining of Respondent No. 4.

Vide order dated 13.5.2011 (Annexure P-1), Petitioner, Senior Assistant was transferred from Sub Division, Rampur to Sub Division, Chopal. The transfer was in public interest and with prior approval of the competent authority. Aggrieved thereof, he filed CWP No. 3556/2011 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 20.5.2011, the same was disposed of by making following observations:

The Petitioner who is Senior Assistant is aggrieved by Annexure P1 the impugned transfer order. The main ground of the Petitioner is that he has only less than two years service to retire from service. But the fact remains that the Petitioner has been working in the office of S.D.M., Rampur, for the last more than four years. In case, there is any other convenient and suitable vacancy available, the Petitioner may point out the same before the second Respondent in which case the second Respondent will consider the same and take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the Petitioner before the second Respondent. In case, the Petitioner is relieved in the meanwhile, it will be open to him to avail leave of kind due till orders are passed as above.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Petitioner''s representation now stands decided in terms of impugned order dated 2.6.2011 (Annexure P-3).

According to the Petitioner, his transfer is on the basis of the complaint, which fact stands refuted from the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order wherein it is categorically stated that Petitioner was transferred only on administrative grounds. Assuming it to be correct, even then Petitioner has No. right of posting at the original place of his posting. Respondents, in their reply, have clarified that for the last 29 years 7 months and 26 days, Petitioner has remained posted in and around his home town i.e. Rampur. Incidentally, now Petitioner stands transferred to Chopal which also is within the same District i.e. Shimla.

In our considered view, Petitioner could have been transferred somewhere else also, within the State. But perhaps by taking into account the medical problems of his family members, he was adjusted in his home district.

No. employee has a right to be continued to be posted at a station of his choice. Transfer is an incident of service. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to even prima facie show, much less prove that transfer is either arbitrary or malafide. There are No. allegations of malafide in the petition either. Transfer is also not in violation of the policy framed by the State.

Hence No. relief, as prayed for, can be granted to the Petitioner and the present petition devoid of any merit is disposed of as such.