AMIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court is flooded with litigation filed by employees aggrieved by their transfer and sometimes, even by their non -transfer when they are not shifted out of tribal areas. The time has come when we must lay down the law with regard to the powers of the legislators to influence transfers. Should political pressure and political influence be necessary to run the administration? Should transfers be ordered on the asking of the legislators, members of a particular ruling party, persons belonging to certain groups without even making a reference to the administrative department concerned? Is the policy of transfer always binding upon the Government and its employees or can the Government flout with impunity the policy framed by it? No doubt, the employer is the master and can decide which employee is to be posted at which particular place, but we must remember that we are governed by the Constitution of India. Does not each and every employee have a right to claim that he should be treated fairly? Why is it that favoured employees, who are either well connected or can exercise political or bureaucratic clout are never transferred out of the main cities and those employees who do not enjoy such political or bureaucratic patronage have to stay in remote/tribal areas for years on end. Another disturbing feature which we have found is that in the State of Himachal Pradesh after the period earmarked for normal transfers is over, the transfers have to be ordered only after approval of the competent authority which normally is the Hon 'ble Chief Minister. We have found that people directly approach the Hon 'ble Chief Minister using political influence and patronage without first making a representation to the department concerned. This is a total violation of the Conduct Rules. Despite this violation of the Conduct Rules, these requests of the employees who are backed by political patronage are accepted without even considering what will be the effect of such transfers on the people who are to be served by these employees, or on those employees who may be affected by such transfers.

(2.) DOES anybody care about the students who are studying in the schools? If no teacher is willing to go to the rural/remote areas, where will the students of these rural and remote areas study? Does anybody care in some remote areas, dispensaries are without Doctors or paramedical staff whereas there is more than the sanctioned number of doctors in the State and District headquarters. It was only after the intervention of the Court that the Female Health Workers, who were to serve in the rural areas, were actually transferred there. Almost all the Female Health Workers had been adjusted in Shimla town itself. This shows that neither the interest of the public at large nor that of the administration was kept in view while adjusting these Female Health Workers at Shimla. When the employees want a job then they are willing to join at any place. However, soon thereafter, political patronage is employed to get themselves transferred to a particular place. There is more than sufficient material before the Courts to prove that transfers are made for extraneous reasons without considering the administrative exigencies and the interests of the students.

(3.) RULE 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 lays down that it will be misconduct for an employee to bring in political pressure or get recommendations from others in matters relating to his service. It seems that both, the administration as well as the employees, have forgotten that such a rule exits. Our experience is that unless an employee gets a "suitable recommendation" or brings in political pressure, he can never get posted to a station of his choice. If action is taken against the employee for breach of the Conduct Rules, the employee could very well say that he is damned if he does not use political pressure and damned if he does.