SATISH KUMAR Vs. HPSEB LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the transfer and posting order dated 7th August, 2013, Annexure P -1. The first ground urged before us is that it is a case of sending the petitioner on secondment basis to another organization without his written application in that behalf. Reliance is placed on the deputation policy, Annexure -A to circular issued by the Board dated 5th April, 2011. This argument has been refuted by the learned Advocate General by pointing out that the deputation policy on which reliance is placed has no application to the case on hand. Instead, the relevant and governing policy would be the Scheme formulated in exercise of power conferred by Sections 131(2), 132 and 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003 dated 10th June, 2010. As per Clause (5) of the Transfer Policy, the petitioner, who was earlier working with the Board on the effective date after re -vesting stood transferred to HPSEBL and the order in question has been issued as per the requirement of HPPTCL. This is permissible in terms of Clause (5) of the Scheme pertaining to transfer of personnel from the Board to HPPTCL or HPPCL. In the said Scheme, there is not even remote indication that the deputation or transfer can be effected only on written application received from the concerned employee of the Board. However, the Scheme indicates that the employees of the Board are obliged to work at the place where they have been deputed and discharge the duties and functions, as may be assigned to them from time to time by the HPSEBL or HPPTCL, to which the petitioner has been transferred. In the circumstances, the first argument is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected.

(3.) THE third contention urged before us is that the name of respondent No.2, who is to be posted in place of the petitioner appears in the list of tainted officers. Moreover, respondent No.2 has been transferred frequently in the past only with a view to accommodate him at his instance. Even this argument does not commend to us. Unless the petitioner is able to substantiate from the record that the transfer in question was the outcome of some influence exercised by some person outside the organization, in which the petitioner is working and moreso without impleading him, we are not inclined to examine this contention any further.