Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 933 (HP)

SATISH KUMAR v. HPSEB LTD

2013-11-06

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.- 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the transfer and posting order dated 7th August, 2013, Annexure P-1. The first ground urged before us is that it is a case of sending the petitioner on secondment basis to another organization without his written application in that behalf. Reliance is placed on the deputation policy, Annexure-A to circular issued by the Board dated 5th April, 2011. This argument has been refuted by the learned Advocate General by pointing out that the deputation policy on which reliance is placed has no application to the case on hand. Instead, the relevant and governing policy would be the Scheme formulated in exercise of power conferred by Sections 131(2), 132 and 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003 dated 10th June, 2010. As per Clause (5) of the Transfer Policy, the petitioner, who was earlier working with the Board on the effective date after re-vesting stood transferred to HPSEBL and the order in question has been issued as per the requirement of HPPTCL. This is permissible in terms of Clause (5) of the Scheme pertaining to transfer of personnel from the Board to HPPTCL or HPPCL. In the said Scheme, there is not even remote indication that the deputation or transfer can be effected only on written application received from the concerned employee of the Board. However, the Scheme indicates that the employees of the Board are obliged to work at the place where they have been deputed and discharge the duties and functions, as may be assigned to them from time to time by the HPSEBL or HPPTCL, to which the petitioner has been transferred. In the circumstances, the first argument is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected. The second contention urged before us is that the transfer/deputation order has been issued under dictation on the basis of DO note received by the Board. This argument deserves to be stated to be rejected for the simple reason because the petitioner has not impleaded any person by name, who has allegedly exercised influence in the transfer of the petitioner. Moreover, the decision in question makes no reference to such DO letter or decision having been taken on the basis of such DO letter. In the circumstances, this grievance of the petitioner remains unsubstantiated. 3. Moreover, the decision in question makes no reference to such DO letter or decision having been taken on the basis of such DO letter. In the circumstances, this grievance of the petitioner remains unsubstantiated. 3. THE third contention urged before us is that the name of respondent No.2, who is to be posted in place of the petitioner appears in the list of tainted officers. Moreover, respondent No.2 has been transferred frequently in the past only with a view to accommodate him at his instance. Even this argument does not commend to us. Unless the petitioner is able to substantiate from the record that the transfer in question was the outcome of some influence exercised by some person outside the organization, in which the petitioner is working and moreso without impleading him, we are not inclined to examine this contention any further. 4. THE question is whether the petitioner can be permitted to challenge the transfer of respondent No.2. We have no manner of doubt that the petitioner will have to succeed in his own right in the first place by pointing out that the transfer is illegal and not permissible in terms of the governing transfer policy. The petitioner has failed to substantiate that position as noted earlier. The fact that respondent No.2 has been transferred frequently in the past cannot come to the aid of the petitioner; nor the fact that the name of respondent No.2 appears in the list of tainted officers, will be of any avail. The question as to whether the posting of respondent No.2 at the place where the petitioner is presently working is justified and appropriate can be tested in the proceedings, which are pending in this Court as public interest litigation. The fact that the petitioner has not succeeded in this petition will be no impediment for this Court to decide the said issue independently in the pending proceedings. The fact remains that the petitioner has completed more than three years at the present location and cannot be heard to complain about the transfer, which, otherwise is inconsonance with the norms of tenure posting of three years. As per the transfer policy, which applied before the trifurcation of the Board, Clause (19) read with Clause (17) required that no field officers/officials be allowed to work/posted in industrial area for more than three years. As per the transfer policy, which applied before the trifurcation of the Board, Clause (19) read with Clause (17) required that no field officers/officials be allowed to work/posted in industrial area for more than three years. Applying the principle underlying thereto, if the impugned transfer order has been issued by the Department, no fault can be found with the same, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 5. AS no other contention is urged before us, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Needless to observe that with the dismissal of this petition, interim order comes to an end forthwith.