Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 193 (HP)

HARI RAM SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-06-10

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2005
ORDER Honble Ms. Bakhshish Kaur, (Retd.) Chairman :- The applicant has challenged the impugned transfer order dated October 14, 2003 mainly on the ground that just after short span of one year he has been transferred. This act on he part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as respondent No. 3 have resisted the claim of the applicant by way of filing separate replies. 3. I have heard Sh. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sh. Heminder Chandel, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 4. Annexure A-1 is order dated September 3, 2002 whereby the applicant was transferred to GSSS, Choppal on his request where he had joined on September 27, 2002. His substantive grievance is that he should have been allowed to complete his normal tenure at GSSSS, Choppal where he was transferred to his request and before the completion of the normal tenure he could not be disturbed. Therefore, the impugned Annexure A-2 being arbitrary and in violation of the transfer policy is liable to be quashed. 5. Whether any legal right vests in the applicant for allowing him to continue at a particular place this point has been subject matter of various decisions and there is catena of judgments on the point and it has been repeatedly observed that the transfer is an incident of service and one has no legal right to be posted at a particular place. Reliance in this regard is placed on Union of India and others v. Janardhan Deva Nath and another, 2004 SCC (L&S) 631, N.S. Nicose v. The Director General Boarder Road and another, SC 2004(2) SLR 6 and State of Uttar Pradesh and another v Siya Ram and another, 2004 SCC (L&S) 1009. 6. The applicant remained posted at GSSS, Nerva from May 17, 1997 and adjusted at GSSS Choppal on 1.12.2002 as averred by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply, meaning thereby that the applicant is in and around Choppal since 1997 and has completed 7 years at the said place, therefore, transfer order having been passed on administrative grounds and public interest cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. The cause fro transfer is only a prima facie satisfaction of authorities. The cause fro transfer is only a prima facie satisfaction of authorities. In addition to this the applicant was already relieved on the day when interim order of stay was passed in his favour on October 29, 2003 because the respondent No. 3 had already joined the new place on October 27, 2003. 7. For the aforesaid reasons the original application is dismissed.