A.K.DUTTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein has prayed for quashing and setting aside Annexures A -3 and A -5 respectively dated 29.11.2006 and 11.4.2007 and that the respondents may be directed to allow the applicant to function at his present place of posting.

(2.) The sum and substance of the applicants case is that he had always complied with his transfer orders passed by the employer and had worked for full term at Reckong Peo in District Kinnaur. As per the Transfer Policy of the State Government a person who had once completed his tenure in a tribal/hard area, cannot be transferred to a hard and difficult area. It is further claimed that the applicant vide Annexure A -3 had been transferred to Nerwa a hard area, which transfer appears to have been effected in the colourable exercise of the power with malafide intention as is revealed by the endorsement in the transfer order to the Private Secretary to the Agriculture Minister and the fact that transfer has been effected without allowing him T.T.A. Aggrieved applicant filed O.A. No. 224/2007 which was ordered to be treated as representation vide Annexure A -4. Such representation was rejected by the Principal Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of H.P. vide Annexure A -5. Hence, this original application on the grounds that the impugned orders are violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, unjust, illegal/arbitrary, discriminatory and also suffer from mala -fide.

(3.) The respondent in its reply contested the claim of the applicant on the grounds that the applicant has been transferred on administrative grounds with prior approval of the competent authority after he has a stay of 10 years in his home district. It is also claimed that the transfer and postings are ordinary incidence of service and are presumed to have been made to satisfy the administrative exigency. The Transfer Policy of the State Government is in the nature of executive instructions and does not confer upon the Government employee legal or enforceable right. Thus, the application is "abinitio non maintainable". So far as T.T.A. is concerned, the respondents claims that the applicant had not made any representation to any authority in this regard. It is also denied that his transfer had been ordered because of the intervention of a politician. It is admitted that the applicant had worked in the tribal area for full term but thereafter he was given a posting of this choice. It is, thus, claimed that impugned transfer is in the public interest and because of administrative reasons.