Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 715 (HP)

GURDYAL SINGH v. HPSEB LIMITED

2013-08-06

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 waives notice. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was due for transfer but the transfer has been effected purely on the basis of direction issued by the Chief Minister to transfer the petitioner to a particular location. Notwithstanding the fact that respondent is an autonomous body and independent Corporation, on which the Chief Minister of the State, can have no direct or indirect control, more particularly, with regard to service conditions of the employees of the Corporation. Recently we have considered similar grievance in Writ Petition No. 1469 of 2013, which was allowed on accepting the argument of the petitioner therein vide decision dated 5th July, 2013. For the same reasons, even this petition ought to succeed inasmuch as we have held that the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited is a Company registered under the Company's Act, 1956 and is an autonomous body. The Chief Minister of the State has no role in the day-to-day working . and administration of the Board. The argument of the respondents that the Chief Minister, being the head of the State, recommendation made by him, can be taken forward by the Board, did not find favour with us and instead, we have held that the Appropriate Authority of the Board has to apply its mind, on case to case basis, even if recommendation is received from the office of the Chief Minister and take decision in the matter, in accordance with law and in conformity with the transfer policy, as is applicable to the employees of the Board. 3. TAKING the same view, we allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned transfer order. We are inclined to do so in the present case also because the impugned transfer order does not refer to the fact that it has been necessitated due to administrative reasons or in public interest. 4. IN the circumstances, the impugned transfer order Annexure P-1, is quashed and set aside. We are inclined to do so in the present case also because the impugned transfer order does not refer to the fact that it has been necessitated due to administrative reasons or in public interest. 4. IN the circumstances, the impugned transfer order Annexure P-1, is quashed and set aside. At the same time, we make it clear that it will be open to the Appropriate Authority of the Board to consider the question regarding transfer of the petitioner, if the petitioner is due for transfer and to decide the said proposal on its own merits, in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.