HHC BHARPOOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN terms of impugned order dated 21.1.2012 (Annexure P-1) both, petitioner No.1 Bharpoor Singh and Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? petitioner No.2 Shri Gurdev Singh stand transferred from Baddi to 2nd IRB. Petitioners have challenged their order of transfer on various grounds including that petitioner No.1 Sh. Bharpoor Singh is to retire some time in mid 2013.

(2.) IT is seen that both the petitioners have remained more or less near their place of residence. No doubt, petitioner No.1 Shri Bharpoor Singh is to superannuate sometime in August, 2013 and petitioner No.2 Sh. Gurdev Singh is to superannuate in May, 2013, but nonetheless the reasons assigned by the State for their transfer are totally justifiable and sustainable in law.

(3.) POSTING and placement of an employee is the sole prerogative of the employer. Petitioners do not have any fundamental right of being posted at the place of their choice. Such decisions are being taken by the administrative authorities inter alia based on administrative exigencies. In law there cannot be an inherent right in an employee to remain posted at a particular station of his choice immediately prior to his retirement, even if something undesirable, if not adverse, is found against any action of an employee. Confidence of an employer, in an employee to discharge duties at a particular station is of paramount consideration. As such, I do not find any fault with the action taken by the authorities and present petition is hence dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.