AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following relief:-
That Annexure P-2 may be quashed and the petitioner may be allowed to continue at Parwanoo.
Annexure P-2 is the office order dated 17.6.2011 which reads as under:
OFFICE ORDER
Ms. Sheela Chauhan, Clerk posted in HPSPCB, Central Lab, Parwanoo, Solan H.P. is hereby transferred from HPSPCB, Central Lab, Parwanoo to HPSPCB Office, Shimla with immediate effect without TTA/Joining Time.
Sd/- Member Secretary
Endst. No. HPSEP&PCB/PF/6084-88
Dated 17.6.2011
Even on an earlier occasion, similar order dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) was passed which was subsequently cancelled on her representation made to the appropriate authority. According to her, she had never requested for such transfer and some one else forged her signatures, requesting for her transfer from Parwanoo to Shimla.
Challenge to Annexure P-2 is also on the ground that even now she has never requested for any transfer from Parwanoo to Shimla and the alleged letter containing her request does not bear her signature. Also in this regard, she has made a representation to the competent authority which is pending consideration.
On 28.10.2011, Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:
CWP No.9303 of 2011-A & CMP No.11055 of 2011
Petitioner submits that she has never prayed for transfer and that she has been transferred apparently by manipulating the records at the instance of some interested parties.
There will be direction to the first respondent to make available the records pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner. The dealing hand shall be present before this Court with records on 14.11.2011.
Post on 14.11.2011.
The petitioner is free to continue to be on leave of the kind due till such time and she may not be compelled to join the transferred station.
Respondents have produced the record, which is perused and returned. A copy of the counter affidavit, stated to have been filed in the Registry, has been handed over in the Court and is being taken on record.
Record does not reveal that petitioner''s allegation of impersonation is factually correct. It is true that order of transfer dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) was cancelled vide order dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure R-1/1), but however there is nothing on record to show that it was cancelled after it was found that her letter of request was forged.
This Court is not specifically going into the question of alleged subsequent impersonation for the reason that the matter, even according to the petitioner, is pending before the appropriate authority.
Be that as it may be, record reveals that petitioner was engaged as a Clerk on daily wage basis and is working at Parwanoo since her initial appointment i.e. 1.3.1997. She was regularised as a Clerk on 24.9.2007. For more than 13 years, she has been working at Parwanoo. It is a settled position of law that an employee does not have a vested right to be placed at a station of his/her choice. Also transfer is an incidence of service. As such, her transfer from Parwanoo to Shimla cannot be said to be malafide, arbitrary or illegal in law, even if it is found that petitioner had not requested for her transfer. At the most, she would be entitled to the benefit of TA under the rules. Her transfer is based on administrative exigencies and considerations.
As such, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to join at the place of her posting within 3 weeks for the reason that work at Shimla is suffering. Interim order stands modified to the aforesaid extent.