Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 123 (HP)

SANGEETA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2006-05-03

B.S.CHAUHAN, M.R.VERMA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Admit. 2. In view of the short controversy, the mater is finally heard and is being disposed of. 3. The applicant is aggrieved by the transfer order Annexure-A/1 whereby she has been transferred from Sub Centre Meerpur Kotla to Sub Centre Gohal allegedly within a short span of one years and five months, therefore, she has j prayed that said transfer order may be quashed an set aside and respondents be directed to allow the applicant to work at Sub Centre Meerpur Kotia. 4.The case of the applicant in that she was posted at Meerpur Kotla on her request conceded to by respondents as per the policy of the State Government and should have been allowed to continue at Meerpur Kotla for the normal period of three years but as is apparent from the transfer order she has been transferred after short stay just to accommodate respondent No.4 who was earlier transferred to Sub Centre Gehal to which the applicant had now been transferred. It is also claimed that there was complete ban on transfer, save and except the transfers approved by the Chief Minster, in case of filling of vacant posts or promotion or extreme administrative reason whereas for passing the impugned order none of these conditions existed. 5. The respondents contested this claim on the ground that the applicant throughout her service career remained posted in one Block of the District though belong to the State cadre. It is also claimed that till the date of transfer almost each and every interest of the applicant had been watched by the respondent but it is not possible to accommodate her always as it has to see the interest of other employees as well. Qua the compassion on which she was earlier posted at the present place which included the posting of her husband at Nalagarh, there being none to look after the children and her father about 86 years of age and it has been claimed that these are her personal problems which are to be sorted out by her and her husband and so far as children of the applicant are concerned they are old enough to take care of themselves. It is thus claimed that the applicant is not entitled for the relief. 6. It is thus claimed that the applicant is not entitled for the relief. 6. In the reply filed by respondent No.4 the claim as made in the original application has been disputed almost on similar grounds as in the reply of respondents 1 to 3 and it has further been claimed that father of the respondent No.4 is undergoing treatment at Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre New Delhi for heart ailment and he resides with her and that her sister-in-law aged about 55 years old and is mentally retarded and needs permanent attendant to look after her. It is further claimed that husband of the replying respondent is a patient of PIVD undergoing treatment at Govt. Medial College Chandigarh and it was against this background that the applicant was adjusted by virtue of the impugned transfer order wherein there is no infirmity. 7. It is not in dispute that only about one year or so before the impugned transfer order the application was accommodated/adjusted by the respondents at the present place of positing because of her family circumstances. It is not in dispute that her transfer has now been ordered because respondent No. 4 in view of her circumstances had been adjusted against the post presently occupied by the applicant. It is not the case of respondents 1 to 3 that the circumstances under which the applicant was adjusted at the present place of posting has been rendered none-existent or the effect and impact thereof stood minimize with the passage of ... of about one year. It is also not their case that respondent No.4 could not be conveniently adjusted some other station view of her personal problems. The fact however, remains that this time preferential treatment appears to have been given to respondent No.4 in view of the facts and circumstances in which she sought her adjustment and in the case of the applicant without claiming that the circumstances under which she was posted at the present place of posting had been rendered non-existent or her problem has been minimised, it, is claimed that these are her personal problems which are to be sorted out by her and her husband. This stand now taken by the respondents apparently reflects arbitrariness on the apart of the respondents in transferring the applicant and admitted the respondent No. 4. This stand now taken by the respondents apparently reflects arbitrariness on the apart of the respondents in transferring the applicant and admitted the respondent No. 4. Apparently they are merciful to respondent No.4 but not so in the case of applicant. This expressed arbitrariness vitiate the impugned transfer order which this rendered unsustainable. 8 In view of above this original application is allowed and the impugned transfer order is not aside. 9. It is however, made clear that nothing contained this order shall come in the way of respondents in re-considering the transfers of applicant and respondent No.4 in a dispassionate and fair manner and pass such transparent and equally balanced orders devoid of any arbitrariness as may be deemed fit and proper keeping in view the circumstances as they prevail at present, 10. No orders at to costs. MA 3001/2005, Dismissed as infructuous in view of the above order.