Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 124 (HP)

SATYA PAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-05-09

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2005
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, Chairman: - The applicant working as Senior Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan has assailed the transfer order Annexure A-2 whereby he has been transferred to Nalagarh before he could complete his normal tenure. 2. The respondents have resisted the Original Application. It being not maintainable as the applicant has suppressed the material facts. He has been transferred from Solan to Nalagarh after long stay of 11 years. Therefore, he has no locus stand to file Original Application. 3. We have heard Sh. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Abhilasha Kumari learned Additional Advocate General for respondents. 4. The Original Application in hand is quite sketchy. The substantive grievance of the applicant is that he remained posted in the Deputy Commissioner, Solan as a Senior Assistant w.e.f. March 20, 2004 for a period of six months. In addition to this, he is the only son of his parents. His mother has expired. His father 73 years old is suffering from Asthama is being looked after by him. One of his daughter is also studying in IInd year and another daughter is studying in 10+1. His three sons are studying at Government Senior Secondary School, Rajgarh in Matric Standard and one son is studying at Government Middle School, Pabiyna. The Schools at Nalagarh are Summer closing unlike Schools where children of applicant are studying. Therefore, all these equitable facts including the short stay of the applicant is sufficient ground for interference. 5. We have considered the submissions made by Sh. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Counsel for the applicant. The broad concept of transfer is a change of place. It is well known that order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation of family setup. But, on this score, transfer is not liable to be struck-down unless there is something else on record to show that the order passed is mala fide or in violation of rules of service. Hardship is not ground to challenge transfer and in this regard reliance can be easily placed on Dr. Sunita Gupta v. Secretary Ministry of H.R.D. and others (Delhi), 2005(1) SLJ 162, Rajindra Roy v. Union of India and another, AIR 1993 (SC) 1236 : 1993(1) SLJ 93 (SC) : 1991 Supp.(2) SCC 659. 6. Hardship is not ground to challenge transfer and in this regard reliance can be easily placed on Dr. Sunita Gupta v. Secretary Ministry of H.R.D. and others (Delhi), 2005(1) SLJ 162, Rajindra Roy v. Union of India and another, AIR 1993 (SC) 1236 : 1993(1) SLJ 93 (SC) : 1991 Supp.(2) SCC 659. 6. Otherwise also, the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed by him as is made out from the reply filed by the respondents. He had earlier filed O.A. No. 1715/2003 . which was treated to be a representation to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue). It was disposed of on September 5, 2003. The applicant gave an undertaking before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Rev.) (Annexure R-1) which is as under:- Undertaking "This is with reference to my statement before Honble F.C. cum-Secy. (Rev.) to the Government of H.P. regarding representation to my transfer from Solan to Nalagarh. This is to clarify and confirm that I will join my new posting at Nalagarh in the Office of SDM on or before 27th October, 2003." 7. His request to the extent indicated above was acceded and he was ordered to join at Nalagarh on or before October 27, 2003. The competent authority had passed well reasoned order (Annexure R-3) after considering the request of the applicant so that he may settle his family problems. The impugned order Annexure A-2 has been passed in the exigency of service and no mala fide attached thereto. In fact, the detailed and lengthy reply filed by the respondents indicate the events and circumstances which are enough to hold that the applicant has been avoiding his transfer from time to time. 8. Taking the totality of circumstances in to consideration, we are of the view that the applicant instead of honouring the undertaking given by him had also shown disregard to the order Annexure R-3 whereby he was accommodated and adjusted on his request. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of judicial forums and thereby interfere with the correctness of transfer orders. For the aforesaid reasons the Original Application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.