RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in this original application has prayed for quashing the order Annexure A-l dated 6.1.2004 whereby he has been transferred from the office of Engineer-in-Chief at Shimla to National Highway Division, Hamirpur and Annexure A-3 whereby he has been relieved pursuant to the said transfer order.

(2.) The case of the applicant as made out in the original application is that Respondent No. 3 was under transfer to the National Highway Division, Hamirpur but managed cancellation of her transfer and the authority approved her adjustment in the office of Engineer-in-Chief against longer stay. In the office of Engineer-in-Chief there are 35-40 Senior Assistants with longer stay than the applicant, therefore, adjustment was made against the post held by one Sita Ram as indicated in the order Annexure A-l but some one substituted the name of the applicant in place of said Sita Ram. Thus, the impugned transfer order being manipulated order is illegal. Besides the son of the applicant is studying in B.A.-II year in a College in Shimla and his daughter is studying in M. Com. in Shimla and the impugned transfer will result in loss of their studies. The applicant aggrieved by the impugned transfer order filed O.A. No. 109/2004 in this Tribunal which was treated as a representation to be decided by Respondent No. 2 within six weeks and till such disposal the operation of the impugned transfer order was stayed. However, no decision on such representation was taken/conveyed to the applicant instead he was relieved vide order Annexure A-3 dated 5.3.2004. Hence this original application.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed reply which.was adopted by Respondent No. 3. In the reply the Respondents have raised the preliminary objections (i) that no legal or equitable right of the applicant has been infringed, therefore, he has no cause of action, (ii) that the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands therefore, the original application deserves to be dismissed, (Hi) that the original application is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties as said Sita Ram has not been impleaded as party in this original application and (iv) that the Competent Authority in the Government vide directions dated 26.12.2003 directed to adjust Respondent No. 3 in the office of Respondent No. 2 vice longer stay (Male employee) without TTA and joining time and before this on 15.12.2005 a request from H.P. Vidhan Sabha was also received and the matter was accordingly dealt with. Since there was no vacancy to adjust Respondent No. 3 in the office of Respondent No. 2, therefore, name of the applicant was approved for transfer keeping in view the administrative convenience/efficiency factor and administrative and public interest. Since the direction was to adjust the Respondent against longer stay (male employee) and not the longest stay, therefore, all those who had completed their normal tenure at Shimla were considered and for the reasons aforesaid the applicant was ordered to be transferred. The representation of the applicant after hearing him and inquiring into the allegations of manipulation was dismissed on 28.2.2001. The dismissal order could not he delivered to the applicant as he refused to accept the same. Then it was against attempted to be delivered to him but in the meanwhile he stood relieved on 5.3.2004, therefore, such order was sent to his home address by post and on 19.3.2004 another copy was also supplied to him. It is also claimed that a Government servant is liable to be transferred in the public interest anywhere any time in the exigency of service where the department has its administrative units as such an employee has no cause of action against the employer. Therefore, the original application is bad in law and as such not maintainable. It has also been averred in the reply that mention of name of Sita Ram in the transfer order was a typing error in the stencil which when noticed was corrected but the applicant managed to get the uncorrected copy of the said order. In their preliminary submissions the Respondents further claim that the wheel of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts/Tribunals are not expected to interfere in the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers/officials to the proper places as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.