AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i)That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-3).
(ii)That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, -order or direction, may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties at Development Block Bali Chowki, District Mandi (HP) as the impugned transfer order has been issued is patently illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional besides the same being in violation and to the settled principles of Service Jurisprudence.”
When this case was taken up by the Court on 06.07.2026, the following order was passed:-
“CWP No. 10977 of 2026.
Notice. Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Reply be filed within six weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 16134 of 2026.
Notice in the above terms. Till further orders, the operation of notification dated 01.07.2006 (Annexure P-3) is hereby stayed. The stay is being granted as the petitioner has been transferred from the present place of posting after 1 year and 11 months. The court also stands apprised that before the petitioner posted at Development Block Bali Chowki, District Mandi, H.P., the petitioner was posted at Development Block Karsog, District Mandi, where he served w.e.f. 01.07.2020 to 16.09.2021 and thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Development Block Aani, District Kullu where he served w.e.f. 06.09.2021 to 06.04.2023.”
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the petition as well as the reply, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justification in the transfer of the petitioner without permitting him to complete a reasonable tenure at his present place of posting. Simply because the petitioner happens to be a Class-I officer does not mean that the department has to indulge in frequent transfers as far as such like officers are concerned. Class-I officers also are at least entitled to some reasonable tenure at a particular place of posting. In fact, the Court impresses upon the State Government to fix some minimum tenure even for Class-I officers so that there are objective guidelines with regard to reasonable stay at a station for Class-I officers as well.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed by quashing the impugned transfer order dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-3), with the observation that the petitioner shall be allowed to complete a reasonable tenure at the said station (at least for a period of 2½ years to 3 years) and thereafter he may be transferred by the Department as per its administrative exigency. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.