Satbir Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Satbir Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to treat it as a representation and pass a fresh order on the transfer in accordance with the applicable policy terms and amendments, noticing the petitioner's 'protected employee' status; meanwhile the impugned transfer order stands kept in abeyance and shall not be given effect to for a further fifteen days if the fresh decision is taken against the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's transfer from Delhi Depot to Ambala Depot vide order dated 02.05.2025 complies with the Online Transfer Policy of 2020 and its amendment dated 08.02.2024, given that the petitioner is due to superannuate within less than 12 months (on 30.04.2026) and is thus claimed to be a 'protected employee'.

Court's answer

The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Director General, State Transport Department, Chandigarh to consider the writ petition as a representation and pass a fresh order on the petitioner's transfer after taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the applicable policy and the amendment(s) carried out therein.

Ratio / Principle

In passing the fresh-order direction, the court directed that notice be taken of the fact that the petitioner falls within the definition of 'protected employee' since he has less than 12 months to superannuate.

Key takeaways

Until the respondents take their decision, the impugned transfer order dated 02.05.2025 is kept in abeyance qua the petitioner and shall not be given effect to for a further period of fifteen days in case the decision is taken against the petitioner.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – Transfer – Online Transfer Policy of 2020 (Annexure P-2) as amended on 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) – Petitioner, due to superannuate on 30.04.2026 with less than 12 months of service left, claimed to be a 'protected employee' whom the amended policy bars from transfer – Challenge to transfer order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.3, Director General, State Transport Department, shifting him from Delhi Depot to Ambala Depot – Counsel confined the prayer to a fresh decision considering the applicable Mamta policy and the date of superannuation – Notice accepted by DAG, Haryana without objection – Petition disposed of: respondent No.3 directed to consider the writ petition as a representation and pass a fresh order per the applicable policy terms and amendments, noticing that the petitioner falls within the definition of 'protected employee'; till such decision, the impugned transfer order kept in abeyance and not to be given effect to for a further fifteen days if the fresh decision goes against the petitioner.

CWP-14669-2025 1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

122 CWP-14669-2025 Date of Decision: 20.05.2025

SATBIR

... Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present: Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the transfer order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3- Director General, State Transport Department,Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Delhi Depot to Ambala Depot in violation of the applicable Online Transfer Policy of 2020 (Annexure P-2) and amendment in online Transfer Policy, 2020 dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P3), since the petitioner is due to superannuate within a period of less than 12 months i.e.30.04.2026.

The counsel contends that the respondents have transferred the petitioner from Delhi Depot to Ambala Depot vide impugned order dated 02.05.2025, notwithstanding the Government Instructions amending the Online Transfer Policy of 2020 on 08.02.2024, as per which the employees, who have less than one year of service left, cannot be transferred being the protected employees. He contends that he would be satisfied at this juncture in case the respondents are directed to take a fresh decision w.r.t. to the order

of transfer of the petitioner after taking into consideration the applicable Mamta policy as well as the date of superannuation of the petitioner. 2025.05.21 10:06

CWP-14669-2025 2

Notice of motion.

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana accepts notice and has no objection to the same.

The present petition is accordingly disposed of at this juncture with a direction to respondent No.3-Director General, State Transport Department, Chandigarh to consider the instant writ petition as a representation and to pass a fresh order w.r.t. the transfer of the petitioner after taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the applicable policy as well as the amendment(s) carried out therein and also noticing the fact that the petitioner falls within the definition of ‘protected employee’ since he has less than 12 months to superannuate.

Till such time, the decision is taken by the respondents, the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) of transfer shall be kept in abeyance qua the petitioner and shall not be given effect to for a further period of fifteen days in case the decision is taken against the petitioner.

Disposed of in above terms.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) MAY 20, 2025. JUDGE mamta

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

Mamta 2025.05.21 10:06