Dalip Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-8) and impugned transfer order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent no. 2 Director General, Information, Public Relations, and Languages Department, Haryana being illegal, null and void, capricious, unjust and against the Govt. instructions.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-7), petitioner has been transferred from office of District Information & Public Relations Officer, Fatehabad to Head Quarter Chandigarh without considering the fact that the petitioner is working as Driver on contract basis since 2009 and his transfer is against the Govt. Policy because he has been transferred without assigning any reasons from Fatehabad to Chandigarh. It is submitted that petitioner was working as a Driver on contractual basis in the respondent-Department, and there is no policy existing on the basis of which petitioner has been transferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is working with respondent No. 3-District Information & Public Relations Officer, at Fatehabad since his appointment. Due to some oblique motive, the petitioner has been transferred from Fatehabad to Head Office Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025, issued by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No.2 has issued the transfer order without considering the fact that petitioner is a contractual employee and he is being paid salary at D.C. Rate and his transfer is against the Govt. instructions. It is contended that the contract employee such as the petitioner can not be transferred to such a distant place i.e. from Fatehabad to Chandigarh which is 250 Kms away, especially when the petitioner is not entitled for TA & DA. Therefore, the impugned transfer order dated 28.01.2025, being against the Govt. instructions and against the principle of natural justice is liable to be set aside.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being aggrieved with the transfer order dated 28.01.2025, requested Respondent No. 2 to cancel the transfer order as the petitioner is working on contract basis and it is very difficult for him to join at such distant place and it is difficult for him to survive on the meagre salary being paid to him especially at the Headquarter which is situated at Chandigarh. When no action was taken by respondent No.2 in this regard, the petitioner made representation on 30.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reminder on 18.02.2025, but no action was taken. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner had filed CWP-5674-2025 titled as Dalip Singh vs. State of Haryana and others on 27.02.2025 which was disposed of by this Court on 28.02.2025 directing the respondents to decide representation dated 30.01.2025 and reminder dated 18.02.2025 within a period of one month. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-8), representation of the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner and quash the transfer order by passing a speaking order.

It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and the impugned orders be set aside.

Per contra, learned State Counsel has controverted submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that as per the existing policy (Annexure R-4), even contractual employees can be transferred. He accordingly prays for dismissal of present Writ Petition.

No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner had been appointed as Driver on contractual basis in the respondent-Department. Petitioner has joined his duty vide joining letter dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure P-2). Extensions were granted to the petitioner from time to time vide letters dated 17.01.2020 and 06.07.2021 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively). Vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-7), petitioner has been transferred from Fatehabad to Head Quarter Chandigarh by respondent No.2.

It is the first contention of the petitioner that the said transfer order is without reason. However, the said argument is factually incorrect as the record reveals that petitioner was transferred from Fatehabad to Chandigarh as there was acute shortage of drivers in Chandigarh.

It is the next contention of the petitioner that there is no existing policy which permits transfer of the contractual employees. Even this argument is fallacious as undisputedly, the Haryana Government vide Notification dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure R-4) had notified the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2024’). As per the said Act, ‘Secured Employee’ is defined in Section 2(c) which reads as follows: -

Thus, as per the 2024 Act, petitioner is liable to be transferred, irrespective of the fact that his employment is contractual in nature.

It may also be pointed out that on the same cause of action, petitioner had previously filed CWP-5674-2025 titled as Dalip Singh vs. State of Haryana and others on 27.02.2025. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.02.2025 directing the respondents to decide representation dated 30.01.2025 and reminder dated 18.02.2025 within a period of one month. Thereafter, respondents had accorded personal hearing to the petitioner on 15.04.2025. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-8), representation of the petitioner was rejected inter alia on the ground that transfer of the petitioner had been made due to acute shortage of Drivers at Headquarter Chandigarh. It was pointed out that out of 53 sanctioned posts of Driver at Chandigarh, only 34 Drivers were working. Thus, the impugned transfer had been issued in the interest of the work and for administrative efficiency at Headquarter, Chandigarh as shortage/vacancy of Drivers at the Departmental Headquarter Chandigarh is hampering smooth functioning of this Department which is trying its best to disseminate the information/policies for the State Government to the common people.

It is clear from the above that the said transfer of the petitioner did not violate any personal right of the petitioner as it is a fact that the individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.

Given the aforesaid facts, there is no merit to the present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.