ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Devanand, challenging the order of transfer dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from Jal Shakti Division Nalagarh to Jal Shakti Division Nohradhar, vice respondent No. 5, Upma Devi, both of whom were working on the post of Superintendent Grade-II. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1990 in IPH Circle Nahan, which is now Jal Shakti Vibhag Circle Nahan. According to the petitioner, he served the respondent-Department at various places, including IPH Division, Ghumarwin and Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Reckong-Peo, District Kinnaur, Dharampur etc. in his short period of service to their utmost satisfaction. He had only on 14.5.2020, joined at the present place of posting on promotion, as Superintendent at Nalagarh, but suddenly, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2020, he has been ordered to be transferred to Jal Shakti Division, Nohradhar, District Sirmaur, vice respondent No. 5, just after six months of his joining. 3. According to Mr. Varun Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the Transfer Policy of the State Government promulgated vide Office Memorandum dated 10th July, 2013, containing Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 for regulating the transfers of the State Government employees. The aforesaid Transfer Policy is quite comprehensive and an ideal Policy, if it is really implemented in the manner in which it has been framed. The petitioner has alleged that he has been transferred after a short period of six months at the recommendation of respondent No. 6, Sh. K.L. Thakur, the Ex-MLA of Nalagarh, under U.O. Note No. 258148 dated 10.12.2020, which is in violation of judgment dated 19.01.2015 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21772/2014, titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Tara Devi and Another. Learned counsel has contended that the order of transfer is made with a view to illegally accommodate private respondent No. 5, who has joined at Nohradhar only on 21.10.2020 and continuously remained on leave for two months and finally managed through respondent No. 6 to be transferred herself again to Nalagarh. 4. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner is a heart patient and regular visitor of PGI, Chandigarh, which place would be approximately more than 150 Kilometers away from the new place of his posting at Nohradhar, District Sirmaur. 4. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner is a heart patient and regular visitor of PGI, Chandigarh, which place would be approximately more than 150 Kilometers away from the new place of his posting at Nohradhar, District Sirmaur. It would be difficult for him to manage the follow up treatment from there. It is further alleged that respondent No. 5 remained posted at Nalagarh for almost 15 years i.e. from 2007 to 2021. It is argued that this Court, while issuing notice of the writ petition, was persuaded to stay operation of the impugned order of transfer, but despite that respondent No. 5 has not been relieved from the transferred station and sent back to her previous station. Learned counsel also argued that this Court on 23.09.2021, while modifying the stay order dated 17.12.2020, granted liberty to the respondents/State to issue fresh transfer order, but that was intended to permit the respondents/State to transfer private respondent No. 5 alone to any other place. There was no intention to disturb the petitioner from Jal Shakti Vibhag, Nalagarh, where he was posted only six months ago. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court, passed in Tara Devi’s case (supra), wherein the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.01.2013, in CWP No. 5351 of 2012, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P. and Others, was upheld. This Court in the aforesaid judgment, while taking note of Clause 17 of the aforementioned Transfer Policy, held that: “No transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular place. In case they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken.” The Supreme Court also re-iterated the aforesaid directions in the above referred Special Leave to Appeal. 6. Mr. In case they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken.” The Supreme Court also re-iterated the aforesaid directions in the above referred Special Leave to Appeal. 6. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State, opposed the writ petition and submitted that even though this Court initially stayed operation of the impugned order of transfer, but on 23.09.2021 when the matter was listed for arguments, it was canvassed on behalf of the State that they cannot pass any fresh order of transfer in view of the stay order dated 17.12.2020. It was thereafter that this Court clarified that “notwithstanding the interim order granted, respondents/State are at liberty to issue a fresh transfer order” and modified the interim order accordingly.” 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as he has averred in the petition that since he has already served in the hard/ tribal area and he cannot be posted again at Nohradhar, which is a hard area. It is submitted that as per Transfer Policy, the difficult/hard area is, where journey on foot is 5 (Five) kms and the climatic conditions are very harsh or the remote area without facilities for communication and not connected with the road. Applying these conditions, Nohradhar cannot be said to be a hard area, as it is along State Highway and connected with the road. 8. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 27.04.2020 and was posted as such at Flood Control Division Gagret, District Una, H.P. However, he himself, at that stage obtained a D.O. Note from none other than private respondent No. 6 and eventually persuaded the authorities to adjust him at Nalagarh itself, but now since private respondent No. 5 is a beneficiary of D.O. Note given by respondent No. 6, it is contended that the petitioner straightaway approached the Court and did not avail the remedy of approaching before any higher authority. 9. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, argued that husband of respondent No. 5 is suffering from a chronic heart disease. He has been under treatment from PGI, Chandigarh. 9. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, argued that husband of respondent No. 5 is suffering from a chronic heart disease. He has been under treatment from PGI, Chandigarh. It is also contended that respondent No. 5 is suffering from acute spinal problem and on account of which she is not able to walk long distances. It is argued that respondent No. 5 is a lady and apart from her husband, she is also looking after her family. Respondent No. 5 was posted as a Clerk in the respondent-Department in the year, 1992, and was posted in IPH Circle, Sundernagar, District Mandi and thereafter in 2003 in IPH Circle, Kullu, District Kullu and thereafter in the year, 2005 in IPH Division, Solan. She was posted in Tubewell Sub-Division, Nalagarh in 2007. This shows that even she had remained posted at various places. She was promoted as a Superintendent Grade-II on 13.10.2020 and was posted at IPH Sub- Division, Nohradhar. She therefore represented to the respondent-Department explaining her medical conditions, including illness of her husband, which was considered sympathetically and the impugned order of transfer was passed. 10. As far as, the petitioner is concerned, allegation of respondent No. 5 is that he remained posted at IPH Division, Nalagarh w.e.f. 10.06.2006 to 29.04.2016 and thereafter at IPH Sub-Division, Dharampur w.e.f. 29.04.2016 to 14.05.2020. He further submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Kasauli, District Solan, and most of the times, he has remained posted at his native place. When on 27.04.2020, the petitioner was promoted as a Superintendent Grade-II and posted at Flood Control Division, Gagret, District Una, H.P. he did not join there and somehow manipulated to get earlier order of his transfer cancelled and got himself adjusted at Jal Shakti Vibhag, Nalagarh itself, by getting a D.O. Note from respondent No. 6, who happens to be the Ex-MLA of Nalagarh, despite the fact that he remained earlier posted at Nalagarh. It is, therefore, denied that the order of transfer of respondent No. 5 has been made for reasons of mala-fide. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. It is, therefore, denied that the order of transfer of respondent No. 5 has been made for reasons of mala-fide. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. We have come across a large number of petitions which are filed before this Court, alleging flagrant breach of Transfer Policy and mala-fides on the part of, mostly either sitting MLAs or the Ministers, but surprisingly in many of the cases, the orders of transfer are found to have originated from the UO/DO Notes of even Ex-MLAs or party workers. The aforementioned Policy, in Paragraph 17, has dealt with the aspect of the recommendations of public representatives and provided that “On request from public representatives at all levels, on administrative exigencies and in the public interest, transfer shall be considered by the competent authority.” 13. In CWP No. 5351 of 2012, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P. and Others, the Division Bench of this Court, analyzed the aforesaid Clause 17 of the Transfer Policy and also allegations of political patronage and interference in the matter of transfers by politicians in breach thereof and held in Paragraphs No. 4 to 7 as under: “4. Coming to the issue of political patronage. On the basis of the judgments cited hereinabove, there can be no manner of doubt that the elected representative do have a right to complain about the working of an official, but once such a complaint is made, then it must be sent to the head of the administrative department, who should verify the complaint and if the complaint is found to be true, then alone can the employee be transferred. 5. We are, however, of the view that the elected representative cannot have a right to claim that a particular employee should be posted at a particular station. This choice has to be made by the administrative head, i.e. the Executive and not by the legislators. Where an employee is to be posted must be decided by the administration. It is for the officers to show their independence by ensuring that they do not order transfers merely on the asking of an MLA or Minister. They can always send back a proposal showing why the same cannot be accepted. 6. Where an employee is to be posted must be decided by the administration. It is for the officers to show their independence by ensuring that they do not order transfers merely on the asking of an MLA or Minister. They can always send back a proposal showing why the same cannot be accepted. 6. We, therefore, direct that whenever any transfer is ordered not by the departments, but on the recommendations of a Minister or MLA, then before ordering the transfer, views of the administrative department must be ascertained. Only after ascertaining the views of the administrative department, the transfer may be ordered if approved by the administrative departments. 7. No transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular place. In case they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken. We, however, reiterate that no transfer should be made at the behest of party workers.” 14. The aforesaid judgment was cited before the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 801 of 2013, titled Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others and the connected matters. In Paragraphs-30 to 33, while relying upon the judgment of Division Bench in Amir Chand’s case (supra) and dealing with the allegations of political patronage and interference, on a detailed analysis of the facts and law on the subject and perusal of the note sheets, it was held as under: “30. The transfer at the instance of a person, who has no role to play in the Government, will not only be extraneous consideration, but also against public policy. It shakes the confidence of the people and creates an impression in the mind of a common man that the centre of power is somewhere else and not the Government. In order to curb this tendency and inspire confidence in general public and more particularly in the employees, it is necessary that no one should get an impression that employee can be transferred for asking at the instance of a person, who has no concern with the Government. In order to curb this tendency and inspire confidence in general public and more particularly in the employees, it is necessary that no one should get an impression that employee can be transferred for asking at the instance of a person, who has no concern with the Government. This, if goes unchecked, is bound to affect the morale of the employees and their independent working and will not be in the interest of general public. There is, however, one caveat. That, any person has a right to make a complaint against an employee regarding his conduct to his superior or Chief Minister and even request for his transfer. It is, however, only for the competent authority to consider the request and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Further, it is unfathomable that such large number of transfers could be made at the instance of a person who is not in the Government, nor a people’s representative as such. Issuing transfer orders at the instance of an outsider, who incidentally happens to be a Party worker, cannot be a co-incidence, but a concerted effort of the duty holders, who were otherwise responsible to preserve rule of law. Such action not only shakes the conscience of the Court, but also, inevitably, impinges upon the validity of such orders as the same are the product of colourable exercise of power. 31. In Amir Chand (supra), it has been held that no transfer should be ordered at the behest of the party worker or others, who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. In case they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister-in-Charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken. It has been reiterated that no transfer should be made at the behest of the party workers. It is not the case of the respondents in the petitions in which petitioners have been transferred outside Dharampur that Mr. Chandershekhar is holding any position in the government or he is a Legislator. It has not been explained by the respondents in three petitions how the requests for transfer of three petitioners outside Dharampur were considered by the Chief Minister before ordering their transfers. 32. Chandershekhar is holding any position in the government or he is a Legislator. It has not been explained by the respondents in three petitions how the requests for transfer of three petitioners outside Dharampur were considered by the Chief Minister before ordering their transfers. 32. On perusal of the original record, it is noticed that the proposal for transfer has not originated from the concerned Administrative Department, but because of the direction received from the office of the Chief Minister. That is the common pattern in respect of each of these cases. The Special Secretary to the Chief Minister informed the Head of the concerned Department/Board that the Chief Minister has approved transfer of the incumbent from his present posting to the specified station against vacancy, with direction to take necessary action accordingly. In response to that communication, the Head of the Department immediately wrote back to the Special Secretary to the Chief Minister. By way of illustration, we would produce the copy of the communication sent by the Under Secretary (TE) of HPSEBL, addressed to the Special Secretary, to the Chief Minister, which reads thus: “HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BORAD LTD. A State Government undertaking Subject: Regarding transfer of Shri Jaswant Singh, Foreman (TTM) [at S. No. 1 of U.O. Note] from Giri PIID, Girinagar to out of District Sirmour. Special Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, HP may kindly refer to his U.O. No. Secy/CM-E1101/2012-DEP-B-11143 dated 4.3.2013, on the above noted subject. In this context, it is informed that Shri Jaswant Singh, Foreman (HM) has been transferred from Giri Power House Division, Girinagar to Andhra Power House Division, Chirgaon i.e. out of District Sirmour against vacancy with TTA/joining time vide Order No. 69 dated 15.3.2013. The Hon’ble Chief Minister (HP) may kindly be apprised accordingly. Sd/- Under Secretary (TE), H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Shimla-171004 The Special Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister H.P. Shimla-171002.” 33. Notably, the basis of and the background in which communication was required to be issued from the office of the Chief Minister and the correspondence preceding the said communication, is not produced before us. Sd/- Under Secretary (TE), H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Shimla-171004 The Special Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister H.P. Shimla-171002.” 33. Notably, the basis of and the background in which communication was required to be issued from the office of the Chief Minister and the correspondence preceding the said communication, is not produced before us. The loose notings file in the respective cases merely refer to the approval of transfer given by the Chief Minister and the fact that the incumbent has completed his normal tenure at his present place of posting and, therefore, the proposal for transfer may be approved, so that the approval given by the Chief Minister can be implemented. The tenor of the said notings leave no manner of doubt that the understanding of the Head of the Administrative Department was that, compliance of the communication received from the office of the Chief Minister was inevitable. In other words, the impugned transfer orders have been issued under dictation and for extraneous consideration and are neither for administrative exigency nor for public interest as such.” 15. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.11.2013, was challenged before the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21772/2014, titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Tara Devi and Another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking note of Clause 17 of the aforementioned Transfer Policy and approvingly quoting Paragraph-4 to 7 of Amir Chand’s case (supra), held as under: “It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that a perusal of Clause 17 clearly reveals, that the norms depicted in Amir Chand’s case (in paragraphs 4 to 7) were duly incorporated in Clause 17 of the transfer policy. We agree with the submission advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and therefore, hereby set aside the direction of the High Court in quashing Clause 17 of the transfer policy. It is, however, directed that Clause 17 of the transfer policy should for all intents and purposes be read as was expressed in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the judgment rendered in Amir Chand’s case supra.” 16. It is, however, directed that Clause 17 of the transfer policy should for all intents and purposes be read as was expressed in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the judgment rendered in Amir Chand’s case supra.” 16. A careful reading of the judgment of this Court in Amir Chand’s case (supra), clearly shows that what was held was that whenever any transfer is ordered not by the department, but on the recommendations of a Minister or MLA, then before ordering such a transfer, views of the administrative department must be ascertained and only after ascertaining the views of the administrative department, the transfer may be ordered, if approved by the administrative department. It was categorically held that no transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others, who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular place. In case they want to complain about the functioning of an employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should the action be taken. This Court categorically held that no transfer should be made at the instance of party workers. 17. The Supreme Court in afore-quoted two paragraphs, while taking note of the submissions that the norms depicted in Amir Chand’s case were duly incorporated in Clause 17 of the Transfer Policy, upheld the arguments of the petitioner and set aside the decision of this Court in quashing Clause 17 of the Transfer Policy, however, with a rider that for all intents and purposes, the aforesaid Clause 17 should be read as was expressed in Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the judgment rendered in Amir Chand’s case (supra). 18. A large number of petitions are filed before this Court, challenging transfer orders. It is invariably demonstrated by those who approach this Court as petitioners that the orders of transfer have originated not at the instance of administrative department concerned for any kind of administrative exigencies, but many a time at the instances of the party workers and even those who are not sitting Members of the Legislative Assembly and Members of the Parliament and also at the instances of MLAs or the Ministers. 19. 19. In Paragraph-6 of the Amir Chand’s case (supra), it was held by this Court and re-iterated by the Supreme Court, even in respect of MLAs and Ministers that the State authorities before acting upon their recommendations, shall ascertain views of the administrative department and then only order the transfer, after approval by the administrative department. It was clearly held that no transfer should be made at the instance of party workers or others who have no connections either with the Legislature or the Executive. 20. In our considered view, this observation would apply qua respondent No. 6 as well because he is not a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly and this was categorically held that these persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular place. In case, however, they want to complain about the functioning of an employee, then complaint should be made to the Minister-in-Charge and/or the Head of the Department and only after complaint is verified, action should be taken. It was clearly held that no transfer should be made at the instance of the party workers. This was so held to ensure that the order of transfer is made on objective considerations rather than on subjective considerations so that element of arbitrariness is eliminated and transfers are made on actual consideration of administrative exigencies. 21. The present one is a classic case and an eye opener, which shows how the recommendations are sought and readily given by a former MLA of the ruling party, when approached by an employee of this or that department. Thankfully, the State in its reply to the writ petition has fairly acknowledged that when the petitioner was promoted as a Superintendent Grade-II on 27.04.2020 and posted as such at Flood Control Division, Gagret, District Una, he had obtained a D.O. Note from none other than private respondent No. 6, the Ex-MLA of Nalagarh and got himself adjusted there, as is evident from Paragraph-2 of the preliminary submissions filed by the State, which reads as follows: “......that the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 27.4.2020 and was posted as such at Flood Protection Division Gagret, District Una. However, he obtained a D.O. Note from the private respondent No. 6 and got himself adjusted at Nalagarh. However, he obtained a D.O. Note from the private respondent No. 6 and got himself adjusted at Nalagarh. Since the petitioner himself was beneficiary of D.O. Note, therefore, he is not entitled to allege/contend that his transfer was made on the basis of the D.O. note obtained by the private respondent No. 5.” 22. In fact, respondent No. 5 with his reply, has produced on record copy of letter written by respondent No. 6 to the concerned Minister (Annexure R-5/C), recommending case of the petitioner, which is reproduced hereunder: “Sir, Respectfully it is informed that Sh. Deva Nand, Sr. Assistant has recently been promoted as Superintendent Grade II and has now been posted at Flood Control (FC) Division Gagret, District Una. But due to his adverse family circumstances and his own ill health he is not in position to join there. Therefore it is humbly requested that Sh. Deva Nand, Superintendent Grade II may be adjusted at Jal Shakti Division (JSV) Nalagarh, District Solan vice Sh. Dinesh Kumar Superintendent Grade II who may be transferred to Jal Shakti Division Solan against Sh. Narinder Singh Superintendent Grade II who may further be transferred to Flood Control Division Gagret, District Una on willing basis without TTA and JT in super-session of all previous orders, if any. Thanking You. With regards.” 23. The aforesaid letter makes an interesting reading and shows how deep rooted is the politicization of the whole exercise of transfers of employees, which has given rise to new sort of service culture where employees, apart from discharging duties of their post, are forced to approach such politicians so oftenly to seek adjustment at the places of their choice. In the aforesaid letter, what has been recommended by the respondent No. 6 is that the petitioner herein, who was recently promoted as Superintendent Grade-I and now posted at Flood Control Division Gagret, District Una, was not in a position to join there due to his adverse family circumstances. Therefore, it was requested that he may be adjusted at Jal Shakti Division Nalagarh vice Shri Dinesh Kumar, Superintendent Grade-II. Therefore, it was requested that he may be adjusted at Jal Shakti Division Nalagarh vice Shri Dinesh Kumar, Superintendent Grade-II. Not only that, he also recommended that even Dinesh Kumar may be transferred to Jal Shakti Division Solan in place of Shri Narinder Singh, Superintendent Grade-II and further, drastically, the third recommendation was made that Shri Narinder Singh be transferred to Flood Control Division Gagret, District Una, on willing basis without TTA/JT in super-session of all previous orders, if any. There is nothing on record to suggest that Narinder Singh, on his own, made a request to transfer him to Flood Control Division Gagret, District Una. 24. The allegations of the petitioner if examined against the backdrop of these facts, that private respondent No. 5, who had joined at Nohradhar only on 13.10.2020 and remained on leave for two months and eventually got herself transferred back to Nalagarh, on the recommendation of respondent No. 6, the Ex-MLA of Nalagarh, vide U.O. Note 258148 dated 10.12.2020, it would be evident that the respondent-Department this time also passed the transfer order by acting upon the recommendations of respondent No. 6. Although it is trite following umpteen number of judgments of the Supreme Court that interference in the matters of transfer should be made by the High Courts only on two parameters: (i) if it is shown to have been made on proven allegations or mala-fide on the part of any State functionary or (ii) if it is made in breach of any statutory rules. On the kind allegations made, ordinarily, it would be safe for the Court to draw an inference of mala-fide, but in the facts of the present case, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5, are equally guilty of soliciting political patronage at one point of time or other, depending upon their convenience. Therefore, this Court has rightly modified the interim order on 23rd September, 2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now produced on record fresh transfer order dated 28th September, 2021, whereby the petitioner, who was under transfer from Jal Shakti Division Nalagarh to Jal Shakti Division Nohradhar, has been retained at Nohradhar itself and respondent No. 5, Upma Devi, who was transferred from Jal Shakti Division Nalagarh, has since been transferred to the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Fatehpur, against vacancy. 25. 25. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of transfer, which has now been passed with due permission from this Court upon modification by this Court on their request which, in any case, is not under challenge before this Court, but we are inclined to re-affirm the directions earlier passed by this Court in the case of Amir Chand’s case (supra), which have also been re-iterated by the Supreme Court, as to correct interpretation and import of Clause 17 of the Transfer Policy should, which it held, for all intents and purposes, be read as was expressed in Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the judgment rendered in Amir Chand’s case (supra) and that whenever any transfer is ordered not by the departments, but on the recommendations of a Minister or MLA, then before ordering the transfer, views of the administrative department must be ascertained. Only after ascertaining the views of the administrative department, the transfer may be ordered, if approved by the administrative departments. No transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection either with the Legislature or the Executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular place. In case they want to complain about the functioning of an employee, then a complaint must be made to the Minister-in-charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified, action should be taken. 26. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforementioned observations, so also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any. There shall be no order as to costs.