Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 521 (PNJ)

Darshan Kumar v. State of Punjab

2006-02-16

J.S.NARANG, KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2006
JUDGMENT KIRAN ANAND LALL, J. 1. The petitioner who is Superintendent Grade- II (Construction Division), Department of PWD (B&R), was transferred from Barnala to Ludhiana vide order dated 19.9.2005, Annexure P1. Respondent no.3 who was posted at Ludhiana, was to replace him at Barnala. 2. It is order, Annexure P1, which has been sought to be quashed in this petition. The petitioner is due to retire on 31.3.2007 and as per the policy guidelines issued by the State of Punjab, Government employees who are due to retire within the next two years are expected to be accommodated at the same station of posting till retirement. His transfer, according to him, was ordered in violation of the policy decision of the government and it was also actuated by malafides of respondent no.2, with a view to accommodate respondent no.3. 3. The case of respondents no.1 and 2 is that the petitioner was transferred and relieved as per the departmental procedure and with his consent. As such, he is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The additional stand of private respondent no.3 is that he was accommodated, by way of transfer to Barnala, on his request, as his wife was suffering from acute cervical pain. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant records, we are of the considered opinion that the order, Annexure P1, is liable to be quashed. 5. The stand of respondents that the petitioner was transferred and relieved with his consent is palpably wrong. There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate so. Secondly, undoubtedly, no employee can stake his claim to a particular place of posting, as a matter of right, but when the State has framed broad guidelines to be adopted for effecting transfers of Government employees who are due to retire within the next two years, it can be legitimately expected that the same would be adhered to, unless there is some administrative exigency, or the transfer of such employee is in public interest. In Annexure P1, it does find mention that the petitioner and respondent no.3 were ordered to swap their places of posting in public interest, but no such public interest was disclosed in the written statement, nor any such was discernible from the records produced in court. In Annexure P1, it does find mention that the petitioner and respondent no.3 were ordered to swap their places of posting in public interest, but no such public interest was disclosed in the written statement, nor any such was discernible from the records produced in court. A perusal of Annexure P1 shows that it was passed at the request of respondent no.3 but the stand of respondent no.3 about his wife’s illness is not borne out from the records nor any such fact found mention in the written statement of respondents no.1 and 2. Relevant part of the transfer policy of the State of Punjab, as reproduced in para no.2 of the petition, and not contradicted by the respondents, is reproduced as under:- “Government Employees whether Gazetted or non gazetted who are due to retire within the next two years, may be allowed to continue in the same District or at the same station of postings till retirement, as far as possible.” 7. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by the said policy. When he filed this petition, he had one and a half year to go. His date of retirement is 31.3.2007. In other words, he is to retire within a period of one year and two months from today. His transfer, as is clear from the above, had not been effected due to any administrative exigency. It could also not be shown that his transfer from Barnala was to serve any public interest. We are, in fact, clear in our mind that he was transferred in order to accommodate respondent No.3. 8. It may also be noted that the impugned order of transfer and that of relieving of respondent no.3 are of the same date viz. 19.9.2005. The transfer order had not been received in the office of the concerned Executive Engineer till 27.9.2005. But, the petitioner was relieved and the joining report dated 22.9.2005 of respondent no.3 was accepted on 23.9.2005 on the basis of a photocopy of the order which the latter had brought along. The endorsement regarding the petitioner having been relieved on 23.9.2005 was, however, made on the original order on 28.9.2005. The utmost haste with which the petitioner was relieved and the joining report of respondent no.3 was accepted, only on the basis of a photocopy of the transfer order produced by respondent no.3, also confirms the above conclusion. 9. The endorsement regarding the petitioner having been relieved on 23.9.2005 was, however, made on the original order on 28.9.2005. The utmost haste with which the petitioner was relieved and the joining report of respondent no.3 was accepted, only on the basis of a photocopy of the transfer order produced by respondent no.3, also confirms the above conclusion. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order, Annexure P1, which is against the transfer policy of the State pertaining to its employees who are due to retire within the next two years, cannot be allowed to stand. The same is, therefore, quashed and the writ petition is allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs. 10. The record is ordered to be returned through Mr.B.S.Chahal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.