Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 111 (HP)

USHA VERMA v. STATE OF HP

2000-05-19

AVTAR SINGH

body2000
ORDER Admit. With the consent of the parties the case is taken up for final disposal. 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner against her transfer order dated 11.2.2000, Whereby the applicant has been transferred from her present place of posting i.e. SDM office Anni to Dy. Commissioner office, Kullu. Vide Annexure-A1. The case of the petitioner is that this order has been issued arbitrarily and malafidely, as the petitioner has served at the present place of posting only for a period eight months. Same has been issued in the colourable exercise of power. The respondents transferred the applicant from SDM office Anni to Deputy Commissioner office Kullu on 2.7.1998 and was relieved and she joined at DY. Commissioner office Kullu, on 31.7.1998 (Annexure-A2). There after the applicant again transferred to SDM office, vide order 25.5.1998, Annexure-A3, Now the respondents/ department has again transferred the applicant from SDM office Anni to DY. Commissioner office, Kullu, vide order dated 11.2.2000, vide Annexure-A1, only, as stated above, after a brief period of 8 months, just to accommodate respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has received the notice but chose not to file reply, the applicant further states that her husband who is also a Govt. employee, is presently posted at primary Health Centre, Nether in Tehsil Nirmund. Her two children: one is a student of 6th Class (son) and the other of IInd class (daughter) are studying at Anni and are with the petitioner. The distance between Kullu and Anni via Karsog is about 250 KMs., as the road via Jalali remains closed for a few months in a year on account of snow. 2. Reply has been filed by the respondents/ Deputy Commissioner, on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. In reply it is stated that the transfer has been made "in the face of administrative exigencies and in public interest. The applicant had to be transferred after eight months from her place of posting, is perfectly in consonance with Govt. instructions and transfer policy. Transfer in Govt. Service in public interest and Administrative urgency is an essential part thereof." 3. It is further submitted that the transfer order was not arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and illegal and has been made keeping in view the Govt. instructions and policy and also administrative exigencies in public interest. 4. instructions and transfer policy. Transfer in Govt. Service in public interest and Administrative urgency is an essential part thereof." 3. It is further submitted that the transfer order was not arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and illegal and has been made keeping in view the Govt. instructions and policy and also administrative exigencies in public interest. 4. I called for the record to know as to what were the administrative exigencies or public interest in transferring the petitioner, just after eight months. From the perusal of the file of the Deputy Commissioners office, I find that a letter was written by the Honble Local Member of parliament dated 8.2.2000, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. This letter appears to have been received by the Deputy Commissioner, on 11.2.2000, as it is found that the Deputy Commissioner, has passed an order on it on 11.2.2000. Vide this letter Honble MR has desired seven transfers of various employees, including the petitioner. This letter is in Hindi and at serial No. 6, is the name of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, has written following remarks. "may be issued" 5. I do not find that there has been any application of mind. The Deputy Commissioner, has neither examined the proposal at all nor asked the office to give any comments on it. I failed to understand as to what public interest is involved in it, under these circumstances and I do not see any administrative exigencies also. Repeatedly, in the reply filed by the respondent No. 2, it has been stated that the transfer has been made in public interest and in the exigencies of services, in accordance with the Govt. instructions and policy. The facts stated above do not justify the averments made in the reply that the transfer has been made in public interest and exigencies of services. 6. Thus, the transfer order is arbitrary and highly discriminatory. It is very clear that this order has been issued just to accommodate the respondent No. 3. As such, it has been issued with malafide intention. To me it appears that this order has been issued under the influence of extraneous matters, thus, it is a gross abuse of legal power, and to say it was issued in public interest or in exigencies of services, is not warranted by the facts of this case. As such, it has been issued with malafide intention. To me it appears that this order has been issued under the influence of extraneous matters, thus, it is a gross abuse of legal power, and to say it was issued in public interest or in exigencies of services, is not warranted by the facts of this case. From the perusal of record, of the respondents I have concluded that no public interest was involved in this transfer. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed, the transfer order Annexure-A1, dated 11.2.2000, is cancelled. With these observations, the case is finally disposed of with no orders as to costs.