[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Palwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
106 CWP-5685-2026
Date of Decision: 24.02.2026
PALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate and
Mr. Hargun Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of their transfer order
dated 16.02.2026. They are further seeking directions to respondents to
permit them to continue on their old/original place of posting.
2. The petitioners are currently serving in Punjab Police Force
on different posts. They vide impugned order dated 16.02.2026 are
transferred inter-range. As per petitioners, they are not transferred on
account of administrative exigency. Their transfer is punitive and on
account of political vendetta/influence. Wives of petitioner Nos.1 and 3
are elected Sarpanches. They are active supporters of opposition
Shiromani Akali Dal (for short 'SAD') . Photograph of petitioner No.4
surfaced on social media with SAD leader Bikramjit Singh Majithia.
3. Learned State counsel submits that impugned order has been
passed by competent authority. No mala fide of respondents is involved.
It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference in transfer
1 of 5
matters is very limited. It is the employer or higher authorities who have
to decide posting of employees. The Court cannot determine place of
posting of employees. The authorities, in the interest of administration as
well as public interest has to transfer its employees. Transfer is an integral
part of service. Except bald allegations, there is no concrete evidence
disclosing that the petitioner has been transferred with mala fide intention
or there is violation of policy. The respondent-authorities as per need of
the hour have decided to transfer the petitioner. The petitioner cannot
claim right over present place of posting.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhagwan and another, 2001 8 SCC 574,
has held that no Government servant or employee of a public undertaking
has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since
transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of
transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident but a
condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the
public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an
outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of
statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the
Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders, as though they were the
appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the
management.
5. Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11
SCC 402 has held that a Government Servant once appointed at a
particular place or position cannot continue for as long as he
desires. Transfer is not only an incident inherent in terms of the
2 of 5
appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service. Unless
order of transfer is outcome of mala fide exercise of power or violative of
any statutory provision, an order of transfer cannot be interfered with as a
matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to
be made. A challenge to an order should be eschewed and should not be
countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals. The relevant extracts of the
judgment read as under:-
"7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to
contend that once appointed or posted in a particular
place or position, he should continue in such place or
position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is
not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment
but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the
absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law
governing or conditions of service. Unless the order
of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide
exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision
(an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to
do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with
as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of
grievance sought to be made. Even administrative
guidelines for regulating transfers or
containing transfer policies at best may afford an
opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to
approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot
have the consequence of depriving or denying the
competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant
to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated
by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not
affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career
prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured
emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order
of transfer made even in transgression of administrative
guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not
3 of 5
confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed
supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in
violation of any statutory provision.
8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be
eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or
tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over
such orders, which could assess the niceties of the
administrative needs and requirements of the situation
concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals
cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter
of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State
and even allegations of mala fides when made must be
such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on
concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the
mere making of it or on consideration borne out of
conjectures or surmises and except for strong and
convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be
made with an order of transfer."
6. The Apex Court in Sri Pubi Lombi Vs. The State Of
Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No.22074 of 2023 has laid down
parameters of interference in transfer matters. Court has held that judicial
interference in transfer matters is not warranted in absence of (i)
pleadings regarding mala fide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom
allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the
allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is
holding a transferrable post.
7. The allegations of petitioners do not seem to be just, fair and
reasonable to interfere with the impugned transfer orders. Considering
the facts of the present case and judgments of Supreme Court, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere with order dated 16.02.2026.
4 of 5
8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the petition
deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
9. It is made clear that this order will not preclude petitioners
from approaching the authorities.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
February 24, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
