Clubbing Stay Of Employee At Different Postings For Transfer Purposes Doesn’t Violate Definition Of “Transfer” Under State Rules: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Court docket has held that clubbing the interval of keep for the switch of workers doesn’t violate the State’s Switch Coverage or the statutory guidelines governing transfers. In holding thus, the court docket overruled an earlier conflicting judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “We’re at an entire loss to grasp how the clubbing of keep for the aim of switch of an worker violates the aforesaid provisions because it doesn’t alter the which means of ‘switch.”
Background Details:
On March 22, 2024, the petitioner, Monika Katna, a educated graduate trainer, was transferred from Authorities Excessive Faculty, District Kangra, to Authorities Senior Secondary Faculty, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. The switch came about by clubbing her earlier keep at close by postings round Authorities Excessive Faculty, District Kangra, to calculate her complete tenure on the station.
Difficult the switch, the petitioner contended that the Training Division had wrongly clubbed her earlier postings, as this was in opposition to Clause 10 of the Switch Coverage of the State Authorities, dated tenth July 2013, and in opposition to the mandate of Statutory Rule 2(18).
She relied on the judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023, the place a single choose bench of the Excessive Court docket had held that clubbing of keep was opposite to the Switch Coverage and relevant statutory guidelines.
So, when the petitioner’s petition got here earlier than one other Single Bench, he referred the query of clubbing of keep to a Bigger Bench.
Findings:
The Division Bench remarked that switch insurance policies are merely a set of pointers used to manage transfers. These pointers should not legal guidelines and cannot be enforced by workers by the Courts.
In Union of India v/s S.L. Abbas, 1993, the Supreme Court docket held that “the rule of thumb in respect of switch doesn’t confer upon the federal government worker a legally enforceable proper. It additional held that it’s trite that non- statutory instructions should not enforceable within the Court docket. The Hon’ble Supreme Court docket has gone to the extent of holding that the order of switch made even in transgression of administrative pointers can’t even be interfered with, as they don’t confer any legally enforceable proper and due to this fact, until the switch order is proven to be vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provision, the identical can’t be interfered with”.
The Court docket famous that on this case, the guiding rules framed by the Division of Personnel should not legal guidelines and cannot be enforced in court docket; the Authorities has the facility to alter, add to, or take away these pointers at any time.
It acknowledged that such insurance policies fall throughout the unique discretion and jurisdiction of the State, until the time they don’t cross the constraints or restrictions laid down by the Structure of India.
The Court docket additional acknowledged that it’s settled regulation that the place the Structure doesn’t require an motion to be taken solely by laws, the Authorities can act by govt orders or body insurance policies each time wanted. The Authorities can even amend these orders or insurance policies each time it deems obligatory. Nevertheless, any such change have to be made with cheap discretion and never arbitrarily. Additionally, the change should adjust to article 14, making certain that individuals in the identical state of affairs are handled equally.
As regards the applicability of Statutory Rule 2(18) of the Switch Coverage of State Authorities, the Court docket famous that it defines a “switch” as “the motion of a Authorities servant from one headquarter station during which he’s employed to a different such station, either- (a) to take up the duties of a brand new publish, or (b) in consequence of a change of his headquarters.”
The Court docket thus concluded that the clubbing of keep of an worker at totally different postings for switch functions doesn’t change or violate this definition of “switch”.
Accordingly, the Court docket held that the workplace memorandum permitting the clubbing of keep for transfers within the Training Division is totally authorized and legitimate and never opposite to the switch coverage.
Lastly, the Court docket overruled the sooner judgment in Anurag Chadha versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.
Case Identify: Monika v/s State of HP & others
Case No.: CWP No.2734 of 2024
Date of Choice: 06.06.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Okay.S. Banyal, Senior with Mr. Uday Singh Advocate. Advocate Banyal,
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Extra Advocates Basic with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate Basic.
