Smt. Savita Devi vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the period from 11.10.2006 to 19.1.2007 be treated as duty period instead of leave of the kind due.

The petitioner was transferred from Government Primary School Shankar Garden Bahadurgarh to Government Primary School, Geeja Road, Jhajjar by order dated 27.9.2006. Ultimately, the said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No. 19989 of 2006 which was disposed of by judgment dated 18.12.2006 with a direction to the respondent-District Education Officer Jhajjar to decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the petitioner was adjusted to a place which was convenient to her viz. Government Primary School Balore. During this interregnum, the petitioner remained absent and subsequently made a representation for treating the period from 11.10.2006 to 19.1.2007 as duty period on the ground that her transfer having been set aside, the said period should be treated as duty period and her salary for the same released. Vide impugned order dated 21.12.2007 (Annexure P-10), it was decided that her original transfer order was not illegal and, thus, for that period she should be granted leave of the kind due.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the very fact that the transfer of the petitioner from Bahadurgarh to Jhajjar was changed reveals that the transfer order was per se illegal and, thus, the petitioner could not be prejudiced for not joining the transferred place of posting.

I am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. The mere fact that the posting of the petitioner was changed from Jhajjar to Balore cannot be construed to mean that the original transfer order was illegal. The fact that the competent authority gave some relief to the petitioner could not create a right in her to claim that the transfer was illegal. In CWP No. 2743 of 2009, Saroj Bishnoi v. State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 20.2.2009, a similarly situated employee had protested her transfer which was later rescinded. She too made a claim for grant of salary for the period she did not join. In the said case, the competent authority passed an order granting her extra ordinary leave. This Court held as follows:

A perusal of these facts reveals that the one point programme of the petitioner since being inducted into service has been to stay at Panchkula coupled with an obdurate refusal to serve at any place even though the same may be 10-15 Kms from Panchkula like Kalka and Chandigarh. It is also not disputed that complete medical rest was not advised to the petitioner.

In the circumstances I am not persuaded to hold that there is any such error in the impugned order which can justify interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

It may be noticed that the above judgment has been upheld in LPA No. 195 of 2009. I find that the present case is similar to the case of Saroj Bishnoi (supra). Here also, the petitioner has been granted some relief in the matter of transfer. However, this fact cannot justify her action in not joining the place of posting. Thus, no error can be found in the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been granted leave of the kind due for the period 11.10.2006 to 19.1.2007. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.