Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 86 (HP)

DESH RAJ v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-04-05

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2005
ORDER Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.) Chairman :- The applicant aggrieved by the transfer orders dated August 11, 2004 whereby he has been transferred from Bilaspur to Bharmour, has filed this original application, therefore, he prays that it may be quashed. 2. The respondents have taken up a consistent stand in resisting this original application that the transfer being an incident of service thus does not confer any vested Fundamental Right to continue at the place of his choice. The applicant belongs to Bilaspur District and he intends to remain in that area where he has already put in service for sufficient long time. 3. We have heard, Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Abhilasha Kumari learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 4. The substantive grievance of the applicant is that he was adjusted at Bilaspur on his own request therefore, once he was accompanied on his request then the department is estopped from transferring him to Bharmour without allowing him to complete his normal tenure. The applicant has to be look after his old mother which is not possible for him to cover such a long distance in order to look after his aged parents. His transfer after short stay of six months is against transfer policy. 5. It is a well settled that it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer its employees. The scope of judicial review of transfer is limited and it has been settled by the Apex Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, 1993(1) SCC 148 : AIR 1993 SC 1236; State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal, 2001(5) SCC 508 : AIR 2001 SC 1748. 6. In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486, the observations made by the Judges of the Honble Apex Court need to be reproduced which is as under :- "We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. This court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the fact of it, no injustice was caused." 7. The transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norms or principles governing the transfer. 8. In the present case in hand the applicant joined as Agricultural Extension Officer on November 15, 1988 at Barara Circle Hamirpur and remained posted at the following station :- 1. Barara Circle (Bhoranj) Hamipur Distt. 15.11.1988 to 8.3.1994 2. Ghumarwin Block (Bilaspur) 9.3.1994 to 30.1.2003 (F.N.) 9. It is also made out from the averments in the reply that the applicant on-his promotion from the post of Agriculture Extension Officer to the Post of Agriculture Development Officer was posted at Seed Testing Lab. Solan v/here he joined on 30.1.2003 and further on his request he was adjusted in the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Bilaspur where he joined on February 16, 2004. Thus, he was being accommodated and adjusted on his request at the aforesaid places and where the transfer order is based on administrative grounds, then the applicant should not have any grudge for his posting out especially when he remained posted in District Bilaspur for the last more than 10 years. 10. In Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath and others, 2004 SCC (L&S) 631 in para 12 it has been observed that "transfer unless they involve any such adverse impact or visit the person concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach, assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. Keeping the aforesaid circumstances in view we are of the opinion that no legal right of the applicant has been infringed nor he has legal right to be posted for ever at a particular place or place of his choice. Consequently, the original application is dismissed.