JAI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a work-charged employee in the Public Head Sub-Division No. 1, Gohana. Accordingly, he has put in more than eight years in the Public Health Department. Since he was elected as President of the Workcharged Public Health Workers Union, Gohana, in the year 1985, he was being transferred from time to time. Earlier, he was transferred in Oct., 1987; Jan. 1988; March 1988 and April 1988 and finally by the impugned order dated Oct. 12, 1988, copy Annexure P.l. He also alleged mala fides against Shri Kishan Singh, M.L.A., Gohana, respondent No. 5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Sonepat, it has been stated that the transfers of the petitioner in Oct., 1987; March, 1988 and April, 1988 were made on his own request and not on any administrative ground. It has been further stated that the transfers of the petitioner in Jan. 1988 and Oct. 1988, i.e., vide the impugned order, were made in public interest as many complaints against the petitioner regarding his misbehaviour and wilful absence from his duty were received from the villagers and fellow employees and not with mala fide intention or being inimical towards him, as alleged. It has also been averred that the petitioner was relieved on Oct. 17, 1988, and he joined his duties on Nov. 25, 1988 at the new station vide copy, Annexure R.16 and, therefore, the writ petition has/become infructuous. The allegations of mala fides have been denied by Shri Kishan Singh, M.L.A., respondent No. 5 by filing a separate written statement. However, replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner controverting the averments made in the affidavit filed by Shri Kishan Singh, M.L.A.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer was not in public interest, but was by way of punishment. The learned counsel further submitted that the transfer was against the policy decision of the State Government, copy, Annexure P.2.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification for interfering with the transfer orders which stands already implemented. Three transfer orders, i.e., in Oct., 1988; March, 1988 and April, 1988, were made on the request of the petitioner and, therefore, he could not make any grievance thereof. The transfer policy of the State Government is not enforceable as such in a Court of law. It is only for the guidance of the officers concerned. In any case, as regards the present case, the transfer order already stands implemented vide copy, Annexure R.16, dated Nov. 25, 1988, and the petitioner is working since then, i.e., more than eight months back at that place. In these circumstances, it will not be in the fitness of the things to transfer and send back the petitioner to his earlier place of posting.