Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2 (HP)

Baldev Singh Pathania v. State of H. P.

2012-01-02

SURINDER SINGH

body2012
JUDGEMENT Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner is a Forest Ranger in the respondent-Department. He felt aggrieved by the office order Annexure P3 dated 14.11.2011 whereby he has been transferred from Chakoli Range, Churah Forest Division to Jhanduta Bilaspur Forest Division before completing his normal tenure. 2. The respondents justify the transfer order of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is holding Class-II (Gazetted) post, which is transferable and can be deployed anywhere in Himachal Pradesh. It is also submitted that State Government has laid several parameters to transfer its employees vide office circular dated 10th April, 2008 (Annexure R1). Thus referring to Clause-VII of the aforesaid Annexure, it is submitted that no employee can claim his transfer or posting as matter of right, whereas, it will be the prerogative of the State Government to post/transfer any employee anywhere keeping in view the administrative convenience. Respondents also referred to Clause-5 of the said circular which deals with normal posting period of all categories of employees for three years linked with performance and administrative requirement. 3. Admittedly, the transfer is an exigency of service and no Government servant can claim to remain posted at a particular place. The employer/appointing authority certainly know when and where to transfer its employees. The Court does not sit in appeal or a supervising authority over it unless it is actuated with malafide or is based upon extraneous consideration in sporadic case when it is not linked either with the performance or the administrative requirement or on political vindication. 4. In the instant case petitioner was transferred and posted as Ranger on 11.11.2010 at Churah Forest Division Chamba and on 14.11.2011 he was transferred from Chakoli Range to Jhanduta Range of Bilaspur Forest Division, that is, after about one year and two days pertinently when the petitioner is to retire on 31.3.2013. 5. The respondents were directed to produce the record with respect to the transfer of the petitioner which was produced by Shri Parveen Kumar, Superintendent of office of the Principal CCF, through the learned Deputy Advocate General, which is perused and returned. 6. 5. The respondents were directed to produce the record with respect to the transfer of the petitioner which was produced by Shri Parveen Kumar, Superintendent of office of the Principal CCF, through the learned Deputy Advocate General, which is perused and returned. 6. Perusal of record reveals that the proposal of transfer emanated from the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister vide UO letter No.Secy/CM-07005/2007-VIP-B­3024 dated 8.9.20 1 1 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister whereby the transfer of the petitioner was requested to be considered to a far- flung area that too without any substantial cause. Consequently, the Additional Secretary (Forests) sent his communication to the Principal CCF with a copy of the aforesaid UO letter to process the case of the petitioner. 7. The Dealing Assistant of the Office of the Principal CCF proposed that the petitioner could be posted in one of the vacant Ranges either in Chopal or Rohru Forest Divisions in condonation of his short stay at the present place of posting, but keeping in view the age of the petitioner the proposal was forwarded to the concerned authorities to transfer him to Jhanduta Range of Bilaspur Forest Division, but since his stay was short, therefore, the proposal was sent to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for condoning the short stay. 8. In the entire record produced before the Court, I failed to find out that the transfer of the petitioner in any way was linked either with the performance or the administrative requirement. The reasons for the transfer of the petitioner to the far-flung area are not spelt out at all anywhere and it is also not understood what public interest is going to be served in his transfer. It all remained hidden like an iceberg. Consequently, the impugned transfer order Annexure P3 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to transfer the petitioner from the present place of posting to any other place if there are cogent administrative reasons/ exigency by a speaking order keeping in view his age and date of retirement. 9. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any and the interim order dated 25.11.2011 is vacated.