Himachal Pradesh High Court
Babu Ram vs The H.P. State Forest Corporation And ... on 4 December, 2015
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 3905/2015
Reserved on: 3.12.2015
Decided on 4.12.2015
Babu Ram ................Petitioner
.
Versus
The H.P. State Forest Corporation and another ..........Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
of
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate.
Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):
rt This petition is instituted against Order dated 28.8.2015 rendered by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1071/2015.
2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an unskilled worker in Rosin and Turpentine Factory Bilaspur on 25.11.2004.
He is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 14.5.2015 whereby he has been transferred from Rosin & Turpentine Factory Bilaspur to Nahan. Petitioner assailed the transfer order dated 14.5.2015 by filing OA No. 1071/2015. OA was disposed of by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 28.8.2015. The operative portion of the Order reads as under:
"4. In the facts and circumstances and interest of justice, the original application is disposed of with the stipulation that subject to the applicant making a detailed representation, supported by documents alongwith certified 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:27 :::HCHP 2
copy of this order, highlighting the above aspect and with a prayer for suitable adjustment against an existing/likely vacancy out of at least five vacancies to be indicated in the representation to fulfill the requirement under the transfer policy, to respondent No.1-Corporation through its Managing .
Director, within a week from today, who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and the transfer policy framed by the State Government as applicable to the Corporation, by 30th September, 2015, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, if so desired."
3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate has vehemently argued that of the transfer order dated 14.5.2015 has been issued on the basis of a DO issued by the local MLA.
4. rt Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate has vehemently argued that the transfer is in public interest. It is evident from the record that the petitioner has been working at same place in Rosin and Turpentine Factory Bilaspur since his initial date of appointment i.e. 25.11.2004. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner was relieved from Bilaspur on 25.5.2015.
Petitioner has no vested right to work at a particular place. It is for the employee to decide where an employee should be transferred in the larger public interest.
5. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, has drawn the attention of the Court to annexure P-1/A dated 7.5.2015 addressed by the Secretary of Rosin and Turpentine Factory Worker's Union Bilaspur. Text of the letter itself suggests that the petitioner is the president of BMS. According to the Standing Orders, workers and supervisory staff are liable to be posted in any of the factories of the Corporation within and outside the State of Himachal Pradesh.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:27 :::HCHP 36. Scope of judicial review in transfer matter is very limited. We have taken note of annexure P-1/A. It can not be said that transfer of the petitioner is solely based on communication dated 7.5.2015. Though the petitioner was given opportunity to .
make representation giving therein five stations on 28.8.2015 but despite that the petitioner has not chosen to make any representation. No specific malafide has been alleged against any person.
of
7. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh reported in (2010) 13 SCC 306, have rt held that the transfer is an incidence of service. Their lordships have held as under:
[12] Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the concerned State authorities which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The concerned administrative authorities may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well-settled that Courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, 1996 AIR(SC) 11.
8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R. Perachi reported in (2011) 12 SCC 137, have held that the transfer is an incident of service and one cannot make a grievance if a transfer is made on the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:27 :::HCHP 4 administrative grounds, and without attaching any stigma which was so done in the present case. Their Lordships have held as under:
[21] We have considered the submissions of both the counsel. As far .
as the action of transfer against the first respondent was concerned, the same was on the basis of the report of the Registrar (Vigilance). Besides, the District Judge had also opined that retention of the appellant in his district was undesirable from the point of view of administration. Thus, it involved inter- district transfer. The respondent no.1 had not disputed the power of the High Court to of transfer him outside the district, nor did the division bench interfere therein on that ground. This is apart from the fact that transfer is an incident of service, and one cannot make a grievance if a transfer is rt made on the administrative grounds, and without attaching any stigma which was so done in the present case.
[22] In the context of transfer of a govt. servant we may refer to the dicta of this Court in N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India, 1995 AIR(SC) 423 where this Court observed in para 22 as follows:-
"23..... Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make the decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm of principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:27 :::HCHP 5 departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated."
[23] In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Kourav, 1995 AIR(SC) 1056, the Administrative Tribunal had interfered with the transfer .
order of the respondent and directed him to be posted at a particular place. It is relevant to note that while setting aside the order of the tribunal this Court observed in para 4 of its judgment as follows:-
"4......The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly of and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take rt appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place."
24. We may mention that this Court has reiterated the legal position recently in Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, 2009 8 SCC 337 that `in a matter of transfer of a govt.
employee, the scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer.'
9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge (Sureshwar Thakur) Judge December 4, 2015 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:27 :::HCHP