Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 519 (HP)

Hari Ram v. HRTC Through Managing Director (HRTC)

2023-12-13

RANJAN SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Rahul Gathania, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. 2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):- “(i) That the impugned office orders dated 31-10-2023, 06-12-2023 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Sundernagar to Nerwa may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may very kindly be allowed to work at the present place of posting keeping in view of Transfer Policy in the interest of justice.” 4. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector in the Himachal Road Transport Corporation and is posted in HRTC Unit Sundernagar. 5. The petitioner has assailed the Office Order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) transferring the petitioner from Sundernagar to Nerwa. The petitioner has assailed the Office Order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) on the ground, that firstly as per the existing transfer policy, also issued by State Government, which is applicable for employees of Respondent-Corporation also, the transferred place i.e. Nerwa is a hard/rural area and once the petitioner had already served in the tribal area at Recong Peo from the year 2000 onwards then, his re-transfer to the aforesaid difficult/remote area is not in terms of Clauses 12 & 16 of the Transfer Policy. The second contention is that the petitioner is due for retirement on 31.07.2025 i.e. after one year and seven months and that being so, the transfer is not in consonance with the spirit of Clause 5.5 of the norms governing transfers. The third contention is that the petitioner has certain hardships including medical exigencies as mentioned in Paras 8 & 9 and which are also borne out from Annexure P-3, annexed with the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Gathania, submits that the transfer has been ordered in public interest and to give effect to the request made by private respondent No.3. 7. This Court is conscious of the fact that if an employee makes a request for transfer resulting in dislocation of another employee then, the displaced employee, in normal parlance, has neither any right nor locus standi to assail the transfer orders. 7. This Court is conscious of the fact that if an employee makes a request for transfer resulting in dislocation of another employee then, the displaced employee, in normal parlance, has neither any right nor locus standi to assail the transfer orders. This case is an exception to the aforesaid principle, for the reason, that once the State Authorities have issued the transfer norms and guidelines which are applicable to the employees of Respondent-Corporation, mandating in Cause 5.5 that an employee, who have less than two years for retirement are to be considered for posting at convenient stations subject to vacancy. In the instant case, the respondent’s counsel is unable to show that the respondents have resorted to the required exercise, as contemplated in Clause 5.5 for exploring the feasibility of considering the petitioner at convenient station(s) in terms of Clause 5.5 of the transfer norms either by calling for an option or otherwise in view of intended retirement within two years as per Clause 5.5 of the Policy. In these circumstances, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation pointing out of the grievances to the Respondent No.1-Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation within a week from today; and in case, any such representation is made, this Court directs the aforesaid respondent to consider/examine the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in the light of Clause 5.5 of the Transfer Policy within 25 days thereafter and that too after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as a sequel to the Office Order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), the Managing Technical, HRTC, Sundernagar has issued an Office Order on 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), intending to relieve the petitioner on 11.12.2023, but learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not been relieved from Sundernagar as yet. 9. In these circumstances, till the decision of the representation, the impugned transfer Orders dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) and the Office Order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) shall remain stayed qua the petitioner. 10. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all questions of facts and law are left open. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.