Sanjay Parmar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Respondent No.1 has transferred the petitioner from District Planning Cell, Una and posted him at Planning Headquarters, Shimla. This transfer has

been ordered vice respondent No.2, who has been brought in petitioner’s place.

Questioning this transfer, on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner has not as yet completed his normal tenure of three years at

the present place of posting, therefore, the transfer order is bad in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that wife of respondent No.2 is already posted

as Assistant Research Officer in District Planning Cell, Una and therefore, transfer of respondent No.2 to District Planning Cell, Una would be

contrary to the following Clause 6 of the State transfer policy:-

“6. Postings of near relatives: As far as possible, father-son, el brother, wife and near relatives may not be posted in an office and in different

offices of a department where they are supposed to have work together or subordinate to each other. This will not be applicable to the non-

administrative posts like doctors etc.â€​

Additionally, it is submitted that the transfer has been ordered during the currency of ban imposed on general transfers.

On behalf of the respondent-State, it is pointed out that even during the ban period, transfers can be ordered with the approval of the competent

authority. Next, it is submitted that the petitioner is a Class-I Officer, therefore, Clause 10 of the transfer policy, prescribing normal tenure of three

years of service at a particular place, will not be applicable in his case. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 as well as his wife both are holding

non-administrative posts, therefore, Clause 6 relied upon by the petitioner will not be attracted.

It is seen from the documents brought on record that the transfer has been ordered with the approval of the competent authority. It is also apparent

from the record that respondent No.2 has been posted at District Planning Cell, Una, where his wife is already serving as Assistant Research Officer.

Though, as per the submissions made by the State, both respondent No.2 as well as his wife are holding non-administrative posts, yet it is an admitted

fact that respondent No.2 on his transfer to District Planning Cell, Una, would become the reporting officer in respect of writing ACRs of his wife.

Posting of both husband and wife in a place, where husband would be the Reporting Officer of his wife’s Annual Confidential Reports, is neither

desirable nor warranted. This setting, in our considered opinion, would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, transfer of respondent

No.2 to District Planning Cell, Una, where his wife is already posted as Assistant Research Officer, cannot be sustained.

We also cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner is a Class-I Officer, therefore, Clause 10 of the transfer policy prescribing minimum tenure of three

years of service will not be applicable to him. Even otherwise, the petitioner, as per his own admission, has completed two years and nine months of

stay in his present place of posting and previously also he has remained posted at Una w.e.f. 2011 to 2017. Transfer of petitioner outside Una is

justified in the facts of the case.

For all the aforesaid reasons, though, we do not find any fault in the transfer of petitioner outside District Una ordered vide Annexure P-2, dated

06.05.2021, however, we quash the transfer of respondent No.2 as District Planning Officer, Una and direct respondent No.1-State to consider the

matter of transfer and posting of respondent No.2 afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. This exercise be completed within a

period of four weeks from today. Till then, status quo as existing on date be maintained.

The writ petition stands disposed off in the above terms. Pending miscellaneous application is disposed off accordingly.