Smt. Reeta Mahindroo vs State of H.P. and Another

Dev Darshan Sood, J.—The petitioner challenges Annexure P-2 by which she has been transferred from the post of Assistant Town Planner, Divisional Town Planning Office, Mandi to Divisional Town Planning Office, Kullu against the post of Planning Officer and in her place respondent No. 2, Planning Officer, posted at Kullu, has been transferred to Mandi. A number of grounds have been urged by the petitioner in support of her contention namely; that the order cannot be sustained as the petitioner had joined as Assistant Town Planner in Divisional Town Planning Office, Mandi on promotion on 19.7.2012 and within a short span she has been transferred to Kullu.

The second ground urged is that the husband of the petitioner was posted as Additional Assistant Engineer, HPSEBL, Kullu, when she was transferred on promotion from Kullu to Mandi by order dated 19.7.2012. When she joined in Mandi, her husband was also transferred in April, 2013 and joined at Mandi on 1.5.2013. She did not make any request for her transfer and in this eventuality, the order Annexure P-2 which recites that the order of transfer is without TTA/JT with immediate effect is palpably wrong.

The third ground pleaded is that the second respondent is a Planning Officer, in case she was to be transferred from Kullu to Mandi, she should have been posted in a place where one of the two Planning Officers works in Mandi who have completed their normal tenure of three years.

The point urged by the learned counsel is that the petitioner has a short stay and therefore cannot be transferred which is in violation of the Transfer Policy and the decision of this Court in CWP No. 5351 of 2011, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P.

We will take up the last ground urged in support of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the order has been passed only to favour the second respondent. On more than one occasion what we have observed is that these allegations are being made against the State alleging preferential treatment to a particular employee(s). These allegations cannot be accepted by us unless there is substantive/concrete proof of malafides. We find that the occasion for making these allegations is that the State is not adhering to the Transfer Policy as also the decision of this Court in CWP No. 5351 of 2011, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P., wherein detailed directions had been issued to the State. What we find is that short stay transfers give rise to bitterness and resentment amongst employees which can hardly be considered conducive for functioning of the administration. On the other point, urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner and her husband were retained at one place after the promotion of the petitioner and in this eventuality there could be no request by the petitioner, all that we need say is that Mandi and Kullu are not so far apart. In any event, the petitioner invokes the principle that the petitioner could be retained at a place where her husband works and vice-versa. We note that both the petitioner and her husband are working at different places. We cannot enforce this submission as an immutable or inflexible rule. This petition is accordingly rejected. It will be open to the petitioner or her husband to represent her/his employer(s) for being considered to be posted at common place. No order as to costs.

All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.