Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2509 (HP)

Bhimi Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-10-19

SANJAY KAROL

body2011
Judgment Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-2) vide which the Petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from RFO Sainj Seraj Forest Division to RFO Nachan, Nachan Forest Division, District Mandi. (b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? and 2 to allow the Petitioner to complete his normal stay of posting as RFO Sainj Seraj Forest Division i.e. normal stay of three years. (c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to produce before this Hon’ble Court the relevant records of the case. (d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Respondent No. 3 is present in person who submits that he does not want to file any separate reply and the reply filed by the State is adopted by him. 3. It is not in dispute that prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-2), petitioner was posted as Range Forest Officer at Sainj vide office order dated 24.9.2009 (Annexure P-1). He now stands transferred from Sainj to Nachan. 4. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is prompted by respondent No. 5 for the reason that he had prepared a damage report with regard to the non-forest activity carried out by respondent No. 4, husband of respondent No. 5, who is the Chairman of the Block Development Committee Banjar, District Kullu. However this fact is seriously disputed both by the State as well as private respondent. Apart from bald assertion there is nothing to even prima facie substantiate this plea. 5. There is no doubt that petitioner’s transfer is mid-session and during the plantation season. But respondents have justified their action based on administrative considerations. 6. According to respondents No. 4 and 5 several persons represented against the petitioner to the local MLA who apprised the competent authority about the grievances. However, the stand taken by the State is that petitioner always remained posted in an around his home district. But respondents have justified their action based on administrative considerations. 6. According to respondents No. 4 and 5 several persons represented against the petitioner to the local MLA who apprised the competent authority about the grievances. However, the stand taken by the State is that petitioner always remained posted in an around his home district. Throughout his entire service career he was posted in Kullu Circle which is his home district and as such his transfer out of the circle was warranted in public interest. 7. Undisputedly Nachan does not fall within Kullu Circle yet it is closer to the petitioner’s home place. 8. There is no dispute that the post in question is a State cadre. Posting of an employee at a particular station is purely the prerogative of the employer. In the instant case there is nothing to even prima facie show any arbitrariness or malafides. No doubt transfer is in mid-session, none-the-less the same was effected after obtaining all prior approvals/ sanctions from the competent authority(s). As such, no ground for interference in the impugned order of transfer in favour of the petitioner is made out. 9. According to the petitioner he is to retire in February, 2013 and as per the prevalent policy he is to be posted at the place of his choice and in Kullu circle itself there are at least seven posts where he can be posted. It is always open for the petitioner to approach respondent No. 1, for his adjustment at the station(s) lying vacant. This request of his shall be considered purely on administrative grounds and in terms of the policy framed by the State. 10. However, there is one disturbing feature in this case. Sainj undisputedly falls within Sairaj Forest Division. Departmental proceedings against private respondent No. 3 Sh. Laxmi Chand Thakur already stands initiated from the time when he was posted at Panarsa. Allegedly private respondent No. 3 had indulged into illicit felling of forest trees in Panarsa at the relevant point in time. Sainj Forest Division is also in close vicinity/proximity to Panarsa. It also cannot be disputed that in Sairaj Forest Division there is heavy growth of forest trees and the area is prone to illicit felling. As such, it may not be desirable to post private respondent No. 3 in the said forest division. Sainj Forest Division is also in close vicinity/proximity to Panarsa. It also cannot be disputed that in Sairaj Forest Division there is heavy growth of forest trees and the area is prone to illicit felling. As such, it may not be desirable to post private respondent No. 3 in the said forest division. Perhaps this factor was not taken into account by the authorities while passing the impugned order of transfer. Hence, respondent No. 1 shall immediately look into the matter and also take appropriate decision in this regard. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.