Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 637 (HP)

Dalip Singh Thakur v. State of H. P.

2013-07-03

DEV DARSHAN SUD, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
Judgment : Dev Darshan Sud, J. - 1. The petitioner challenges Annexure P-5, order dated 8.3.2013, transferring him from Paonta Sahib to Amboya against existing vacancy with TTA/JT and the fourth respondent, who was transferred from Paonta Sahib to Amboya, was adjusted at Paonta Sahib. 2. A number of grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order cannot be sustained in law as it violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The first ground urged is one on fairness. The petitioner submits that he has been treated unfairly. It is also urged that prior to Order Annexure P-5, order dated 11.2.2013 Annexure P-4 was passed. It would be evident that the first transfer of the petitioner, which was effected vide Annexure P-4 transferring him from Amboya to Paonta Sahib, was in the public interest. The public interest in the second transfer order Annexure P-5 passed in quick succession does not stand proved. 3. The third ground urged is that the petitioner has a serious cardiac problem and he has submitted his medical record vide Annexures P-1 to P-3 of the Fortis Hospital, wherein he undergone a pass surgery as he has been suffering from a Complete Heart Block. The first surgery was conducted on 24.6.2009 and the second on 23.05.2012, when it was also found that he was suffering from DVT in the Right Leg. It is in this situation that it is pleaded by the petitioner that he requires regular follow up treatment and expert medical treatment which is available at Paonta Sahib and not at Amboya. In case of any heart problem etc. the petitioner would require immediate medical attention. It is then urged that the respondent wields influence in the department and the petitioner stands transferred without completing his normal tenure. 4. The fourth respondent also pleads medical condition of his mother as a ground for his retained at paonta Sahib. From the reply filed by the State, what we find is that the respondent was posted at Paonta Sahib from 1987 to 2006. Thereafter, he was posted at Bankala which is 25 kilometers from Paonta Sahib, then to Nahan and again back to Paonta on 10.1.2010. The medical condition of the petitioner has not been denied by the State. 5. We find that Amboya is at a distance of about 15 kilometers from Paonta Sahib towards Dehradun. Thereafter, he was posted at Bankala which is 25 kilometers from Paonta Sahib, then to Nahan and again back to Paonta on 10.1.2010. The medical condition of the petitioner has not been denied by the State. 5. We find that Amboya is at a distance of about 15 kilometers from Paonta Sahib towards Dehradun. What is urged before us is that the altitude of Amboya is more than that of Paonta Sahib in which eventuality it would cause physical distress to the petitioner. We once again express our anguish in the manner in which the State passes successive orders of transfer. Annexure P-4 was passed on 11.2.2013 and thereafter Annexure P-5 followed in quick succession. The State justifies these orders in the public interest. The reply then proceeds that the first order dated 11.2.2013 was also in the public interest. He states that the petitioner has no right vested with him to seek a particular place of posting and to remain at that place for indefinite period. 6. General principles of law are being invoked by the parties without particularizing them in the present fact situation. Having said that two orders followed in quick succession on 11.2.2013 (Annexure P- 4) and 8.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) both in the public interest, we do find this situation to be a bit strange. We find that the orders in this fact situation can be nothing but whimsical with the authority issuing them in quick succession without application of mind. In this eventuality, we set aside and quash Annexure P-5 as being illegal. It will be open to the respondent to follow transfer policy as also direction issued by this Court in CWP No.5351 of 2011, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.