Dismissed¶21

Deep Ram v. Hpsfc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jun 2025LPA/281/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee transfer; unskilled and semi-skilled workers; Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation; Executive Director; transfer order dated 21.04.2025; Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan; condonation of short stay; Letters Patent Appeal; CWP Nos.7010, 7012 and 7106 of 2025; vested right to place of posting; D.O. Notes; recommendation from Office of the Chief Minister; Under Secretary; Managing Director; mala fide; arbitrariness; writ court non-interference in transfers; TTA/JT; Head Office Shimla; Forest Working Division Chopal; regularization since 2012; frequent transfer challenge.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not in a position to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity. ¶14

Deep Ram Vs Hpsfc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the transfer of the appellants (unskilled and semi-skilled workers of the respondent-Corporation) to the Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan called for any interference in these Letters Patent Appeals. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

This Court is not in a position to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The reasoning of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference; accordingly there is no merit in the appeals.

¶21

Key takeaways

It is a settled principle that transfer orders are not to be interfered by the writ Court until they smack of mala fide or arbitrariness.ratio¶18
Once the petitioners themselves have got external forces exerted upon the establishment of their employer and got their postings, it does not lie in their mouth now to challenge the transfer order.ratio¶18
Merely because the petitioners belong to the areas where they are now posted does not give them any vested right to be stationed there.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Division Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Ranjan Sharma, Judge) dismisses LPA Nos.279-281 of 2025 (Kamal Chand, Pushpa Devi and Deep Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation & Others), decided 05.06.2025, affirming the learned Single Judge's refusal to interfere (in CWP Nos.7010, 7012 and 7106 of 2025) with transfer orders dated 21.04.2025 issued by the Executive Director condoning short stay, by which the three unskilled/semi-skilled workers were moved to the Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan. Held: (i) no vested right to be stationed at a particular place merely because the employee belongs to that area; (ii) it is for the employer to make the best use of its employees' services, who were aware they were liable to be posted at Nahan; (iii) having procured their earlier postings through D.O. Notes and a recommendation from the Office of the Chief Minister, it does not lie in the appellants' mouth to challenge the fresh transfers; (iv) transfer orders are not to be interfered with by the writ court unless they smack of mala fide or arbitrariness. The TTA/JT entitlement conceded by the learned Single Judge stands; pending miscellaneous application(s) stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No.279 of 2025 a/w LPA Nos.280 and 281 of 2025 Decided on: 05.06.2025

¶3

____________________________________________________________ LPA No.279 of 2025 Kamal Chand ...Appellant Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation & Others ...Respondents
LPA No.280 of 2025 Pushpa Devi ...Appellant Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation & Others ...Respondents
LPA No.281 of 2025 Deep Ram ...Appellant Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation & Others ...Respondents
*Coram* Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1_Whether approved for reporting?_
For the appellant(s): Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shipra Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta and Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocates.

¶4

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

¶5

The present set of Letters Patent Appeal(s) are

¶6

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

directed against the order of learned Single Judge, who had chosen not to interfere with the order of transfer of petitioners, who are unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the respondent-Corporation. Learned Single Judge decided three Writ Petitions i.e. CWP Nos.7010, 7012 and 7106 of 2025 filed by Kamal Chand, Pushpa Devi and Deep Ram respectively, who were all aggrieved by the transfer order dated 21.04.2025. All the three employees who were transferred by the Executive Director by condoning the short stay and interest of the Corporation from Head Office in Shimla [Kamal Chand] and from Forest Working Division, Chopal [Deep Kumar & Pushpa Devi] and were being sent to Rosin and Turpentine Factory at Nahan.

¶9

2. The learned Single Judge found that the argument that they were being sent back within a period of 1 year 1 month, was only on account of the fact that on earlier occasion, they had got their transfers done on the basis of the D.O. Notes, issued at the instance of petitioners themselves. It was also noticed that the notes of the competent authority had been acted upon by the then Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation

¶10

¶11

and resultantly, the present transfers were for better utilization of man-power, efficient working and there was shortage of factory workers at the Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Nahan. The work was being hampered due to vacant posts and in such circumstances, due to critical shortage of factory workers, it was held that it is the discretion of the employer to post its employees in the best interest of the administration, operational efficiency and public interest to meet needs of the organization.

¶12

3. The transfers as such were held not to be arbitrary or irrational and therefore, it was held that there was no case for interference in the impugned transfers. The petitioners were however given the benefit being entitled to the usual TTA/JT.

¶13

4. Counsel for the appellants has taken pains to point out that the appellants as such, had been earlier working at Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Nahan from the year 2012 after their regularization and therefore, they had been transferred and the transfers as such, were just after a year or so.

¶14

5. We are not in a position to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity,

¶15

¶16

merely because the petitioners belong to the said areas where they are now been posted, does not give them any vested right as such to be stationed there. It is for the employer to make the best use of their services, once they have been appointed and they are well aware that they are liable to be posted at the establishment at Nahan.

¶17

6. Apparently, as noticed by learned Single Judge, the earlier transfers as such were done by getting a recommendation from the Office of the Chief Minister, which would be clear from the letter issued by the Under Secretary, wherein the Managing Director was requested to take necessary action accordingly and report compliance. At that point of time on account of the request, petitioners were not liable to be paid any TTA/JT.

¶18

7. In such circumstances, once the petitioners themselves have got the external forces as such exerted upon the establishment of their employer and got their postings, it does not lie in their mouth now to challenge the transfer order. It is settled principle that the transfer orders are not to be interfered by the writ Court until

¶19

¶20

they smack of mala fide or arbitrariness.

¶21

8. In such circumstances, the reasoning by learned Single Judge does not require any interference. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal(s) and the same are dismissed.

¶22

9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶23

shall also stand disposed of.

¶24

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶25

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶26

June 05, 2025 [Chiranjeev/Himani]

Deep Ram v. Hpsfc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep Ram v. Hpsfc and Others

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

Union of India and Anr. Vs Davinder Kumar Sharma

Nawang Sonam Vs State of Hp and Others

Union of India and Others Vs Gilu Ram Dhatwalia

Jai Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Kamal Chand Vs Hpsfc and Others

Parveen Singh Bandhu Vs the State of Hp and Others