Dismissed¶42

Anil Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Sept 2024CWP/10221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: frequent transfer; Transfer Policy violation; home district posting; HAS/HPAS officer posted as Block Development Officer; Bharmour; Rait; Kangra; Chamba; quashing of transfer notification; arbitrariness in transfer; costs imposed on writ petition; deprecation of transfer litigation. Useful for cases on judicial approach to transfer challenges by gazetted officers, posting outside home district under state transfer policy, and dismissal of transfer petitions with costs.

What did the court decide?

This Court found no infirmity in the transfer of the petitioner to Rait. ¶36

Anil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the notification dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) transferring the petitioner from Bharmour back to Rait as Block Development Officer suffered from arbitrariness or illegality and deserved to be quashed. +2 more

¶17

Court's answer

This Court found no infirmity in the transfer of the petitioner to Rait.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The posting of the petitioner to Bharmour in District Chamba was in flagrant violation of the Transfer Policy, and was in violation of its provisions.

¶36

Key takeaways

There is neither any arbitrariness nor any illegality in the issuance of the order posting the petitioner at Rait.ratio¶36
The contention that the petitioner was subjected to frequent transfers was held per se bad and without any merit.ratio¶38
The petitioner did not approach the Court when transferred from Rait to Bharmour shortly after reaching Rait, because that transfer was as per his convenience; he litigated only once the transfer was reversed for policy reasons.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (Ajay Mohan Goel, J., oral), CWP No. 10221 of 2024, decided 16.09.2024 [2024:HHC:8757]. An Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Officer's writ petition seeking quashing of notification dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), which recalled him from Bharmour to Rait as Block Development Officer within days of his posting at Bharmour, was dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500/- each payable to the H.P. High Court Bar Association and the H.P. State Legal Service Authority; compliance listed for 14.10.2024). The Court held that the posting at Bharmour was in flagrant violation of the State Transfer Policy (under which an HAS Officer is not to be posted in his home district, the home-subdivision-only clause applying to non-HAS Block Development Officers), that there was neither arbitrariness nor illegality in the impugned order, and that the grievance of frequent transfers was per se without merit, the petitioner having raised no objection to the earlier, convenient Rait-to-Bharmour transfer. The Court deprecated the practice of a serving officer approaching it over a transfer order just like a Class-III or Class-IV employee.

¶1

2024:HHC:8757

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶3

SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No. 10221 of 2024 Decided on 16^th September, 2024

Anil Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶12

For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate.

¶13

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶14

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶15

Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

Facts of the case are that the petitioner, who

¶17

happens to be an Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Officer, has approached this Court seeking the quashing of notification dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof,

¶18

the petitioner, who was earlier transferred to Development

¶19

¶20

2024:HHC:8757

¶21

Block Bharmour as Block Development Officer on 02.09.2024, has been transferred back as a Block Development Officer, Rait in District Kangra, H.P.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that he cleared the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Examination successfully and after completion of the training, he was appointed as a Block Development Officer at Block Development Office Mehla in District Chamba. He joined Mehla in the month of May, 2020.

¶23

In the month of July, 2020, he was transferred as a Block Development Officer to Bharmour. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2021, he was transferred from Bharmour to Haroli in District Una and in the month of July, 2023, he was again transferred to Bharmour as a Block Development Officer. 5. Vide order dated 30.01.2024, the petitioner was transferred as Block Development Officer to Balichowki District Mandi, (Annexure P-1). This was followed by issuance of notification dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-2), in terms whereof, he was transferred to State Head Quarters, Rural Development Department Shimla.

¶24

¶25

2024:HHC:8757

¶26

Thereafter, vide Annexure P-3, dated 22.08.2024,

¶27

the petitioner was transferred from Shimla to Rait as a Block Development Officer. This was followed by issuance of another notification dated 02.09.2024, in terms whereof, the petitioner was transferred from Rait to Bharmour as a Block Development Officer in less than 15 days. After 4 days of the issuance of this order, in terms of the impugned transfer order, the petitioner has been again sent back to Rait from Bharmour.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned transfer is bad as the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers and as his father is unwell, therefore, also his transfer from Bharmour is not justified. No other point was urged.

¶29

On the other hand, learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the Transfer Policy of the State Government and he apprised the Court that in terms of this policy Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Officer is not to be posted in Home District and in the present case, except for his stint at Mandi and Shimla, the petitioner has

¶30

¶31

2024:HHC:8757

¶32

remained posted in his home District contrary to the Transfer Policy. Learned Advocate General submitted that after the petitioner was transferred to Bharmour, as this fact came to the notice of the Authorities, it is in this backdrop that he was sent back to Rait. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that, though, in terms of this policy Block Development Officers are not to be posted in their Home Sub Divisions only, except for tribal area, but, this clause is relatable to those Block Development Officers, who are appointed as such by virtue of their not being member of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service, as promotees etc. from other feeder categories, including direct recruitment, but, herein, as the petitioner is an Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service and has been posted as a Block Development Officers, because, this is the initial posting offered to all Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Officers, the petitioner is governed by the clause, in terms whereof, an HAS Officer cannot be posted in his/her Home District. This could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

¶34

2024:HHC:8757

¶35

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶36

learned Advocate General and having carefully perused the petition as well as documents appended therewith, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the transfer of the petitioner to Rait, as obviously the posting of the petitioner to Bharmour in District Chamba was in flagrant violation of the Transfer Policy. This Court is also quite dismayed that a young Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Officer, who is at the threshold of his service career and who should be knowing the provisions of the transfer policy more than anyone else, has approached this Court just like a Class-III or Class-IV employee, crying hoarse qua his transfer order. The Court deprecates this practice, more so, in view of the fact that there is neither any arbitrariness nor any illegality in the issuance of the order, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been posted at Rait as the posting of the petitioner at Bharmour, indeed was in violation of the provisions of the Transfer Policy.

¶37

In fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers is per se bad and without any merit, because, if that

¶39

¶40

2024:HHC:8757

¶41

was the case, then, why the petitioner did not approach the Court when he was transferred from Rait to Bharmour just after a short stay at Rait? The obvious reason is that the transfer of the petitioner from Rait to Bharmour was as per his convenience and now as he has been transferred back from Bharmour to Rait, once the Government realized that the transfer of the petitioner from Rait to Bharmour was not in consonance with the transfer policy, rather than, respecting this aspect of the matter, he has filed this writ petition.

¶42

Therefore, as this Court finds no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. Rs.12,500/-, shall be deposited with the H.P. High Court Bar Association and Rs.12,500/- shall be deposited with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority. For compliance of this part of the order, list on 14.10.2024.

¶43

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶44

September 16, 2024 (Vinod)

Anil Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Yash Pal Goel Vs Nand Lal Sharma Nand Ors.

Naresh Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others