Rajesh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5752 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061285-DB




107                             2023:PHHC:061285-DB
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                            LPA-505-2023
                                            Date of Decision: 29.04.2023

RAJESH AND OTHERS
                                                            ...Petitioners
                                 Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                                            ...Respondent

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

Present:     Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J. (Oral)

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the

order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6986

of 2023.

The appellants had filed the said Writ Petition for setting aside

the office order Annexure P-3 dated 27.03.2023 issued by the respondents

whereby certain transfers of Taxation Inspectors have been made.

It was the contention of the appellants before the learned Single

Judge that such transfers were made against the principles of natural justice

and in violation of the online transfer policy notifications dt. 31.07.2020 and

dt. 25.05.2020.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition stating that

the transfer of employees is an incident of service, and transfer orders are not

normally to be interfered with unless it is actuated by mala fides or transfer is

prohibited under the Service Rules or the transfer order is passed by an

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061285-DB

2023:PHHC:061285-DB

authority who is not competent to pass it. He also observed that the employee

has no right to insist upon the continuation at a particular place or station of

posting of his choice. He held that merely because respondent No.4 had been

posted at Rohtak by virtue of the impugned order, the appellant could not opt

for the said station, would not give the appellants cause to challenge the

transfer order.

Though counsel for the appellant sought to convince this Court

that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is not correct, we are of the

opinion that cogent reasons have been given by the learned Single Judge and

he has rightly held that the transfer is an incident of service and normally

transfer orders are not to be interfered with except in the circumstances

enumerated in his judgment.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

Accordingly the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

                                               (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO)
                                                     JUDGE



                                                     (SANJIV BERRY)
29.04.2023                                              JUDGE
kv/kanika

                   Whether speaking/reasoned          :       Yes/No
                   Whether reportable                :        Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061285-DB

2 of 2