Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 18.06.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 21 June, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:3800
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 8263 of 2023
Decided on: 18.06.2024
Smt. Meera Nag ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General for respondents
No. 1 to 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged transfer order Annexure P-1, in terms whereof, she has been ordered to be transferred from GPS Sansarpur Terrace (Dadasiba) to GPS Kasba Kotla (Dadasiba). The petitioner is serving as a Centre Head Teacher. Operation of the transfer order was stayed by this Court on 31.10.2023.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned transfer order is bad in the eyes of law as the petitioner has been transferred from present place of posting 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2024 20:35:13 :::CIS 2.
without permitting her to complete her normal tenure and the transfer is a result of a DO note.
3. Though, reply to the petition has not been filed, however, instructions stood obtained by the State, which are dated 09.01.2024 and in terms thereof, the incumbency of the petitioner is as under:-
"Petitioner i.e. Smt. Meera Nag, Centre Head Teacher Sr. No. Name of school Period
1. GPS-R-Khas (Fatehpur) 16.11.1994 to 15.09.2001 2 GPS Riri Kuthera (Dadasiba) 16.09.2001 to 5.09.2013
3. GPS Sandh (Dadasiba) 6.9.2013 to 3.6.2019
4. GPS Nari 3.6.2016 to 24.6.2016
5. GPS Kotla Jakhuni 24.6.2019 to 19.6.2020
6. GPS Sansarpur Terrece 19.6.2020 to 27.3.2023 7 GPS Kasba Kotla 1.4.2023 to till date It is also pertinent to mention here that distance of above schools is between 5Kms. to 8Kms. Hence, her claim for cancellation of her transfer orders issued vide office order dated 27.10.2023 is not justified being a district cadre post as she is working in aforesaid schools w.e.f. 16.11.1994. It is, therefore, requested that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be apprised accordingly please."
4. A perusal thereof demonstrates that the petitioner since 1994 up to 2023 has been serving within a radius of 5 to 8 kms. This fact could not be denied by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Not only this, the place to where the petitioner has been transferred in terms of the impugned transfer order is also at a distance of just 12 kms. from her present place of ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2024 20:35:13 :::CIS 3 .
posting and incidentally, this fact has been concealed from the Court in the writ petition by the petitioner.
5. An aggrieved employee, who is of the view that the transfer order passed by the employer is arbitrary or discriminatory, can always come to the Court. The Court is duty bound to adjudicate said grievances raised by him/her.
Whether or not such an issue is decided in favour of the petitioner or not is a secondary thing. The least that the Court expects from a litigant in such like situation is that he or she would come to the Court with clean hands. Primarily, the Court interferes with the orders of transfer, in case, an incumbent is not allowed by the Department to complete his/her normal tenure at a station for 3 to 5 years. However for this, the Court also takes into consideration the incumbency of an employee because it is a known fact that in order to serve within a definded area, mutual transfers are ordered by the employer at the behest of interested employees. Therefore, indulgence in the cases of transfer is shown when the Court is indeed satisfied that the transfer order has been passed neither on account of any administrative exigency nor in the public interest but is a ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2024 20:35:13 :::CIS 4 .
result of colourable exercise of power or malafide. As already mentioned hereinabove, least that the Court expects from a litigant, when he or she shall approaches the Court, is that the litigant should approach the Court with clean hands. In a transfer case, what is expected by the Court is that the litigant should at least spell out his or incumbency and thereafter leave it upon the wisdom of the Court whether or not to interfere with the transfer order. Herein, the material fact that the petitioner had served for the last about 30 years within a radius of 12 kms was concealed from the Court. It has also been concealed that the station to which the petitioner was transferred from her present place of posting is just at a distance of 12 kms. It was a result of this concealment that interim was passed in favour of the petitioner by this Court on 30.10.2023. However, as this Court is convinced that the petitioner was not entitled for any indulgence in view of the fact that the station to which she stood transferred, was just at a 12 kms from the present place of posting, this petition is dismissed and further, cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed upon her for not coming to the Court with clean hands. Let the ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2024 20:35:13 :::CIS 5 .
amount of cost be deposited by the petitioner with State Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks from today.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
For compliance of this order, the matter be listed before the Court on 29.08.2024.
r (Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 18, 2024
(narender)
::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2024 20:35:13 :::CIS