Punjab-Haryana High Court
M.S. Rana vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 January, 2022
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-187-2022
Date of decision: 10.01.2022
M.S. RANA ...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
(Presence marked through Video Conference)
-.-
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
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.
2. 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).
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:10:59 :::
3. 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'.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
January 10, 2022
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:10:59 :::