Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2003 (PNJ)

Baldev Raj v. Union Of India

2009-11-18

PERMOD KOHLI

body2009
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. The petitioner is presently working in the Railway Protection. Force in the rank of Senior Security Commissioner and posted at Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala since November, 2006. Now the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Kapurthala to Sonepur vide order dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure P-4).The aforesaid order was later on modified vide order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure R-1) and instead of transferring the petitioner to Sonepur, the petitioner has now been transferred to RPF Training Centre Mokammah ECR. 2. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the order primarily on two grounds; i) that he has not completed the prescribed tenure of posting which is according to the petitioner, is three years and the tenure shall be completing in October, 2010; and the other ground is that the petitioner is to retire in April, 2010., In terms of the letter dated 14.3.1974, an employee should not be transferred within a period of two years of the date of superannuation. 3. Though in the order (Annexure R-1) the State where this place is, not mentioned, however, Mr. Puneet Jindal, counsel for the respondent, or, instruction from the officer of the concerned department, has informed the Court that Mokammah is also in the State of Bihar. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent in his reply has disputed the right of the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting for the period of four years. It is stated that the aforesaid instructions were later on superseded by another set of instructions (Annexure R-2) where the minimum tenure at a particular place was reduced to three years by amending the order of dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P-1). According to the respondents, the petitioner has already completed the prescribed tenure and he is liable to be transferred to any other place. 5. In view of the above circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has already completed the tenure. The other aspect is not in dispute that the petitioner is retiring in April, 2010. The petitioner has placed reliance on the letter dated 14.3.1974 wherein it is specifically averred that in terms of he aforesaid letter, an employee should not be transferred within a period of two years of the date of superannuation. The other aspect is not in dispute that the petitioner is retiring in April, 2010. The petitioner has placed reliance on the letter dated 14.3.1974 wherein it is specifically averred that in terms of he aforesaid letter, an employee should not be transferred within a period of two years of the date of superannuation. Even the gist of the letter, as reproduced in the reply filed by the respondents, this aspect of the matter has not been denied. The respondents have only addressed the question of tenure and not referred to the question of retirement within a period of two years. 6. Keeping in view the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that this aspect of the allegations/averments made in the writ petition have been admitted that the petitioner is to retire in April, 2010. This is hardly a period of less than six months. It is deemed appropriate that the petitioner should not be transferred at this stage. 7. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate appearing for the respondents states that these instructions are only administrative in nature and not enforceable. 8. Without going into the question of consideration of the instructions suffice it to say that the purpose of transfer should not be to harass the employee. It is well settled that Court is reluctant not to interfere in the matter of transfer but where the Court found that the transfer of an employee is likely to create problems for the employee, the interference is warranted. The petitioner is to retire within six months from today. It is also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is to arrange marriage of his daughter 9. In view the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed.