BALBIR SINGH Vs. H.P.S.E.B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein has prayed that transfer order Annexure -A/4 dated September 26, 2005 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to allow the applicant to work at Amb till he completes his normal tenure.

(2.) The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the applicant on promotion as Assistant Lineman was transferred from Una to Electricity Division Amb in 1980 where he remained posted till 1990. Then, he was transferred to H.P.S.E.B. Sub -Division Haroli, where he remained posted till 2005. He was promoted as Foreman on 2.2.2005 and was transferred and posted in H.P.S.E.B. Division Rajgarh. However, he made a request to the competent authority to adjust him near his home station in view of his adverse family circumstances, especially the ailment of his wife, which request was acceded and the applicant was adjusted in H.P.S.E.B. Division Gagret, District Una, where he joined on 18.5.2005. However, soon after the applicant was transferred to Amb where he joined on July 25, 2005. Vide order dated 26.9.2005, the applicant has again been transferred from Amb to Rajgarh within a short span of two months of his stay at Amb vide Annexure A -4 and respondent No.3 has again been retained at Amb. Against this background, the applicant claims that the impugned transfer of the applicant after a short stay of two months at Amb is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and has been ordered to accommodate respondent No.3 and is not in the public interest. Hence, this original application.

(3.) The original application has been resisted by the respondents. The respondents No.1 & 2, in their reply, claimed that there is no illegality and irregularity in transferring the applicant from Amb to Rajgarh in order to adjust respondent No.3 vide Annexure A -4. It is further claimed that the transfer has been ordered in the public interest and "transfer is an administrative function and matter of accommodation is to be made by the administrative in the exigency of work", therefore, the applicant cannot claim "posting at a place of his chose as a matter of right. The transfer being an incidence of service," the action of the reply respondents calls for no interference, even in accordance with terms and conditions of the employment and the applicant is under legal and contractual obligation to serve respondents anywhere in Himachal Pradesh. Hence, the claim of the applicant has been denied by the respondents. Respondent No.3, however, failed to file reply.