Shri Ravinder Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by transfer order, Annexure P-2, in terms whereof, he has been transferred from Jal Shakti Division, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. to P & I-II Unit O/o ENC Jal Shakti Vibhag, Shimla, H.P., against vacant post.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted at Indora in District Kangra, vide notification dated 28.08.2023. Just after a short stay of six months, he was transferred to Shimla. Learned counsel further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner from Indora to Shimla, without allowing him to have a reasonable stay at Indora, is not sustainable in law. He accordingly submitted that the petition be allowed, by quashing the impugned transfer order.

Learned Advocate General has defended the order by referring to the reply filed by the State. He has taken the Court through the contents of the reply and after referring to the incumbency of the petitioner, he submitted that the petitioner has served his entire career in close vicinity to Una, Hamirpur and some stations of District Kangra and it is on this count that the petitioner has now been transferred to Shimla, as he has never served in Shimla. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the petitioner holding the office of Executive Engineer and being a Class-I employee, is not otherwise covered by the Transfer Policy and, therefore, he cannot claim parity with Class-III or Class-IV employees, so as to make a prayer that he should be allowed to serve at Indora for 3-5 years. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, same be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted in Indora, in the month of August, 2023 and he was transferred from Indora to Shimla vide impugned transfer order, in the month of March, 2024. The incumbency of the petitioner, as is reflected in the reply, is also not much in dispute. A perusal thereof demonstrates that the petitioner primarily has served in District Hamirpur and Una and he served earlier at Nurpur in District Kangra for a stint of one year. Before his transfer to Indora, the petitioner was serving at Una. The distance between Una and Indora is roughly about 80-90 Kms.

Though this Court is not oblivious to the fact that the petitioner is a Class-I employee and is serving as an Executive Engineer and per se the terms of the Transfer Policy do not govern a Class-I employee, but then this Court is of the considered view that all incumbents, be it Class-I or belonging to some other class, should have some reasonable stay at a station. What that reasonable stay for a Class-I employee can be, of course, is the prerogative of the State Government and it is for the State Government to take a call in that regard, but in case, transfer of a Class-I employee is being effected, after his posting at a station, after about 4-5 months then there have to be very cogent reasons as to why such a transfer is being effected.

Fact of the matter is that whether an employee is a Class-I employee or Class-IV employee, the transfer obviously entails an element of displacement of every employee. So, it cannot be said that because an incumbent is a Class-I employee, he cannot be aggrieved by the transfer or there should not be a reasonable stay of a Class-I Officer, at a particular station. Even a Class-I employee has a legitimate expectation that he shall be allowed to serve at a station for some reasonable time and he cannot be shuttled from one station to other, until and unless there are very-very cogent and compelling reasons entailing his transfer.

In the present case, the respondents have not been able to project any cogent or compelling circumstances as to why the petitioner had to be transferred from Indora to Shimla, just after a stay of 5-6 months at Indora. This demonstrates that the transfer of the petitioner from Indora to Shimla was not in public interest but an act of colourable exercise of power, as in the reply, it has not been explained as to what was that public interest which resulted in the transfer of the petitioner from Indora to Shimla, just after a stay of 6 months.

In view of the above observation, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-2 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to remain at Indora, for some reasonable period. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.