Allowed¶8

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Transfer – Judicial review – Reasonable stay at posting station

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Nov 2024CWP/2059/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla; CWP No. 2059 of 2024; decided 11.11.2024; Justice Ajay Mohan Goel; transfer order quashed; Executive Engineer Class-I; Jal Shakti Vibhag; Indora, District Kangra to Shimla; reasonable stay/tenure at posting station; Transfer Policy does not govern Class-I; legitimate expectation; cogent and compelling reasons; public interest; colourable exercise of power; displacement; judicial review of transfers.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Annexure P-2 (transfer order) quashed and set aside; respondents directed to allow the petitioner to remain at Indora for some reasonable period; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of along with the petition. ¶8

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's transfer from Indora to Shimla after a stay of only about six months, effected without allowing him a reasonable stay at Indora, is sustainable in law, and whether the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-2) should be quashed. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

Since the impugned transfer lacked cogent reasons and demonstrable public interest, the writ petition is allowed, Annexure P-2 (the transfer order) is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to remain at Indora for some reasonable period.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

All incumbents, whether Class-I or belonging to any other class, should have some reasonable stay at a posting station. While what constitutes a reasonable stay for a Class-I employee is the prerogative of the State Government, a transfer of a Class-I employee effected after a posting of only about 4-5 months must be supported by very cogent reasons.

¶6

Key takeaways

Transfer entails an element of displacement for every employee, Class-I or Class-IV alike; even a Class-I employee has a legitimate expectation of serving at a station for some reasonable time and cannot be shuttled from one station to another until and unless there are very-very cogent and compelling reasons entailing his transfer.ratio¶6
The respondents were unable to project any cogent or compelling circumstances for transferring the petitioner from Indora to Shimla after a stay of 5-6 months, and the reply did not explain the public interest behind the move; consequently the transfer was not in public interest but was an act of colourable exercise of power.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer — Judicial review — Reasonable stay at posting station — Petitioner, Executive Engineer (Class-I), Jal Shakti, posted at Indora, District Kangra vide notification dated 28.08.2023, transferred to Shimla in March 2024 after about six months — Held: every incumbent, irrespective of class, should have a reasonable stay at a station; though the duration of reasonable stay for a Class-I officer is the prerogative of the State Government, a transfer after about 4-5 months' posting requires very cogent reasons; even a Class-I employee has a legitimate expectation of reasonable tenure at a station and cannot be shuttled absent very-very cogent and compelling reasons — Respondents failed to show any cogent or compelling circumstances or the public interest behind the transfer — Transfer held not in public interest but a colourable exercise of power — Writ petition allowed; Annexure P-2 quashed and set aside; petitioner to remain at Indora for a reasonable period. (CWP No. 2059 of 2024, decided 11.11.2024 — Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.)

¶1

2024:HHC:11207

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2059 of 2024 Decided on : 11.11.2024

¶4

Shri Ravinder Kumar

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

…Respondent

¶9

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.

¶10

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted at Indora in District Kangra, vide

¶13

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

2024:HHC:11207

¶16

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.

¶17

Learned Advocate General has defended the order

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

2024:HHC:11207

¶21

years. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, same be dismissed.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

2024:HHC:11207

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

In the present case, the respondents have not been

¶31

¶32

2024:HHC:11207

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶36

November 11, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Bala and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs Hpsebl

Joginder Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Kanta Devi Vs Union of India

Anita Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

Sant Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.