Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 742 (HP)

Vinod Kumar Thakur v. Chief Executive Officer-Cum-Secretary

2013-08-16

A.M.KHANWILKAR, V.K.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. THIS petition takes exception to the transfer order dated 5th June, 2012 on the ground that the same is issued in contravention of the terms of agreement arrived at between the parties which was binding on the Authority concerned. Reliance is placed on the contract / agreement, executed between the Junior Engineer of H.P. Housing & UDA, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and the petitioner dated 31st May, 2012. In Clause-6 of the said agreement, it is provided as under:- "6. Transfer of official appointed on contract basis will not be permitted from one place to other in any case." Relying on this condition, it is contended that the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis as Junior Engineer, as was governed by agreement dated 31st May, 2012, provided for non-transferable service. The respondents, however, rely on Clause, contained in office order dated 11th May, 2006. Condition No.7 of . the said office order provides that the employee is liable to serve in any tribal / difficult or backward area of the State in which he / she may be required to serve. Reliance is also placed on the purported policy decision, taken by the Board dated 9th July, 2012, which also enables the Authority to transfer the concerned employee. 3. HOWEVER, we are in agreement with the submission of the petitioner that the said policy, formulated by the Board on 12th July, 2012, will be of no avail in the fact situation of the present case. Neither the conditions specified in the office order dated 11th May, 2006 will be of any avail to the respondents or could be invoked against the petitioner as the Authorities are governed by the agreement executed by them on 31st May, 2012 which guarantees that the service of contract employee is non-transferable from one place to other. The policy, referred to by the respondents, cannot be treated as having statutory force so as to over-ride the condition specified in the agreement executed between the parties which is the governing contract. 4. IN the circumstances, this petition succeeds. The impugned transfer order is quashed and set aside.