Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 11.11.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 November, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:11207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 2059 of 2024
Decided on : 11.11.2024
Shri Ravinder Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Ratta, Advocate
General with Mr. Sumit Sharma,
Deputy Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is
aggrieved by transfer order, Annexure P-2, in terms whereof, he
has been transferred from Jal Shakti Division, Indora, District
Kangra, H.P. to P & I-II Unit O/o ENC Jal Shakti Vibhag,
Shimla, H.P., against vacant post.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner was posted at Indora in District Kangra, vide
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:11207
notification dated 28.08.2023. Just after a short stay of six
months, he was transferred to Shimla. Learned counsel further
submitted that the transfer of the petitioner from Indora to
Shimla, without allowing him to have a reasonable stay at
Indora, is not sustainable in law. He accordingly submitted that
the petition be allowed, by quashing the impugned transfer
order.
3. Learned Advocate General has defended the order
by referring to the reply filed by the State. He has taken the
Court through the contents of the reply and after referring to the
incumbency of the petitioner, he submitted that the petitioner
has served his entire career in close vicinity to Una, Hamirpur
and some stations of District Kangra and it is on this count that
the petitioner has now been transferred to Shimla, as he has
never served in Shimla. Learned Advocate General further
submitted that the petitioner holding the office of Executive
Engineer and being a Class-I employee, is not otherwise
covered by the Transfer Policy and, therefore, he cannot claim
parity with Class-III or Class-IV employees, so as to make a
prayer that he should be allowed to serve at Indora for 3-5
2024:HHC:11207
years. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the
petition, same be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents
appended therewith.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted in
Indora, in the month of August, 2023 and he was transferred
from Indora to Shimla vide impugned transfer order, in the
month of March, 2024. The incumbency of the petitioner, as is
reflected in the reply, is also not much in dispute. A perusal
thereof demonstrates that the petitioner primarily has served in
District Hamirpur and Una and he served earlier at Nurpur in
District Kangra for a stint of one year. Before his transfer to
Indora, the petitioner was serving at Una. The distance
between Una and Indora is roughly about 80-90 Kms.
6. Though this Court is not oblivious to the fact that
the petitioner is a Class-I employee and is serving as an
Executive Engineer and per se the terms of the Transfer Policy
do not govern a Class-I employee, but then this Court is of the
considered view that all incumbents, be it Class-I or belonging
2024:HHC:11207
to some other class, should have some reasonable stay at a
station. What that reasonable stay for a Class-I employee can
be, of course, is the prerogative of the State Government and it
is for the State Government to take a call in that regard, but in
case, transfer of a Class-I employee is being effected, after his
posting at a station, after about 4-5 months then there have to
be very cogent reasons as to why such a transfer is being
effected.
6. Fact of the matter is that whether an employee is a
Class-I employee or Class-IV employee, the transfer obviously
entails an element of displacement of every employee. So, it
cannot be said that because an incumbent is a Class-I
employee, he cannot be aggrieved by the transfer or there
should not be a reasonable stay of a Class-I Officer, at a
particular station. Even a Class-I employee has a legitimate
expectation that he shall be allowed to serve at a station for
some reasonable time and he cannot be shuttled from one
station to other, until and unless there are very-very cogent and
compelling reasons entailing his transfer.
7. In the present case, the respondents have not been
2024:HHC:11207
able to project any cogent or compelling circumstances as to
why the petitioner had to be transferred from Indora to Shimla,
just after a stay of 5-6 months at Indora. This demonstrates that
the transfer of the petitioner from Indora to Shimla was not in
public interest but an act of colourable exercise of power, as in
the reply, it has not been explained as to what was that public
interest which resulted in the transfer of the petitioner from
Indora to Shimla, just after a stay of 6 months.
8. In view of the above observation, this writ petition is
allowed. Annexure P-2 is quashed and set aside. Respondents
are directed to allow the petitioner to remain at Indora, for some
reasonable period. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of,
so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
November 11, 2024
(Shivank Thakur)
