Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 38 (HP)

DHANI RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-03-10

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2005
JUDGMENT Ms. Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.), Chairman.—The applicant by way of filing this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act has assailed the impugned order of transfer dated September 6, 2004, Annexure-A/2 mainly on the ground that he has been transferred from his present place of posting at Sundernagar to Bilaspur in less than 14 months of stay. The impugned order is malafide and against the transfer policy as framed by the respondent State. 2. The maintainability of original application has been questioned by the respondents by raising a plea that the applicant has not satisfied the pre-requisite of Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act (in short the Act) by not availing the remedy available to him. 3. On merits it is averred that impugned order has been passed in larger public interest against longer stay of respondent No. 3 who is there for the last more than 14 years. The transfer has been ordered as per transfer policy of the Government as mentioned in Chapter 21.11.(iv) of Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol. II. 4. The applicant has also filed rejoinder and controverted the plea contained in the reply. 5. I have heard Shri Tarlok Chauhan learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms Abhilasha Kumari learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State. 6. The challenge herein is that transfer order has been issued just after 10 months stay which is against the Government policy. One of his daughter is mentally disturbed and is undergoing psychotropic treatment at Dharampur and requires the constant care and attention of the applicant. Above all transfer order has been passed simply to accommodate respondent No. 3 who is serving there for the last 14 years. Instead of disturbing the applicant, someone else could be disturbed or dislocated. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel and I do not find myself in agreement with the same. 8. It is the prerogative of the employer to post any person at a suitable place according to the exigency of service. The applicant is stated to be resident of Mandi. He was posted at Sundernagar where from he has been transferred to Bilaspur. The distance of these two places is not much. 9. 8. It is the prerogative of the employer to post any person at a suitable place according to the exigency of service. The applicant is stated to be resident of Mandi. He was posted at Sundernagar where from he has been transferred to Bilaspur. The distance of these two places is not much. 9. Dehors the distance between two places i.e. Sundernagar and Bilaspur, there is hardly anything on record to suggest that the impugned order has been passed in a mala fide manner or that it is actuated by malice or mala fide. Transfer is an incident of service. One has no legal right to be posted at a particular place. In fact, broad concept of transfer is change of place. 10. Simply because the applicant has been transferred after short stay of 14 months at Sundernagar is not enough to be interfered with. Utmost latitude should be given to the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service as has been observed by their Lordships in "Union of India v. Janardhan Deva Nath and another, (2004) SCC (L&S) 631". 11. Challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunal as held in "State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lai, 2204 (3) SLR (SC) 239". 12. It is well settled preposition of law that a transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or in fraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. In this regard reliance is placed on "N.S. Nicose v. The Director General Border Road and another, 2004 (2) SLR (SC) 6". "Indian Council of Agriculture Research v. Atiur Rehman, 2004 (2) SLR 609" and "Avani Kanta Rai v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169; 1995 (8) SLR 687". 13. Above being the position, the impugned order does not seem to have been passed in violation of statutory provisions or transfer policy formulated by the State. In fact, no legal or fundamental right of the applicant has been infringed. Consequently the original application is bound to fail. For the reasons given above, there being no merit in the original application, the same is hereby dismissed. O.A. dismissed.