Dismissed

M.S. Rana v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2022CWP/187/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a transfer order from Sirsa to Bhiwani in a writ petition. The court dismissed the petition, noting transfer is an administrative exercisable at discretion. However, the court directed the competent authority to honor the 1998 policy keeping the petitioner at the new posting due to limited service left.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; however, it is directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue at the place of transfer.

M.S. Rana Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CWP-187-2022

¶2

121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision: 10.01.2022

¶4

M.S. RANA …Petitioner V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶6

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. (Presence marked through Video Conference)

¶8

-.-

¶9

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL )

¶10

Petitioner herein, inter alia , seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash transfer order dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure P- 10) vide which he has been transferred from Sirsa to Bhiwani.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier transferred in midterm from Kaithal to Bhiwani vide an order dated 26.02.2019. However, he was compelled to approach this Court vide CWP No.5676 of 2019 and operation of order dated 26.02.2019 was stayed. Subsequently, on promotion as Superintending Engineer, he was posted at Sirsa. However, just after five months of being posted at Sirsa, petitioner has again been transferred midterm from Sirsa to Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 29.12.2021. Learned counsel contends that petitioner is fully conscious that being a Government servant he can be transferred, but the same ought to have been done in accordance with the transfer policy. He further submits that department has not adopted any specific policy, despite Government Instructions/Policy dated 07.04.1989 (Annexure P-11).

¶12

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.12 11:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶13

On advance service, learned State counsel joins proceedings and opposes issuance of notice of motion. He submits that reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on transfer policy dated 07.04.1989 (Annexure P-11) is misplaced. The same stands modified by a subsequent Policy dated 19.11.1998, whereby it was made clear that ordinarily, transfer of an officer who has one year of service left prior to his superannuation should not be done unless in extreme cases. Copy of subsequent policy dated 19.11.1998 has been tendered in course of hearing, which is taken on record and marked as Annexure ‘A’.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.

¶15

Transfer being matter of administrative exigency, this Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a case of extreme hardship. The case in hand does not seem to be such so as to deserve any indulgence. Moreover, to transfer an official, or not to, is sole discretion of the employer based on the administrative exigencies. Not doing or doing so is not a punishment, but an integral part of service conditions.

¶16

No grounds are made out to interfere. Dismissed. However, it is expected of the competent authority that since the petitioner is only left with one year and five months of his service, he would now be allowed to continue on his transferred place in terms of the transfer policy dated 19.11.1998, ibid.

¶17

Disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE

¶19

January 10, 2022 vandana

¶20

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

¶21

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.12 11:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

M.S. Rana v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Rana v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahil Mahajan Vs Sashi Bala and Ors.

Suresh Nehra Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Suman Rani Vs Hari Om

Ajay Yadav Vs Bharti Yadav

Shila Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others