Transfer Policy Is Non-Statutory and Non-Justiciable; Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Validity & Legality of Clubbing Employee Stay for Transfer Purposes
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom held that it’s well-settled that switch coverage merely lays down the rules for switch which aren’t solely non-statutory but additionally non-justiciable. Accordingly, the Courtroom noticed that the clubbing of keep for the aim of switch of an worker doesn’t violate the Switch Coverage of the State and doesn’t alter the that means of “switch”.
A Writ Petition was referred to the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom relating to the problem whether or not the clubbing of keep for the aim of switch of staff of the Schooling Division is opposite to Clause-10 of the Switch Coverage of the State Authorities.
The Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja noticed, “On this view of the matter, we respectfully agree with the view taken by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, within the immediate case and maintain that the workplace memorandum dated 27.10.2023 which supplies for clubbing of keep for the aim of switch of staff of the Schooling Division is totally authorized and legitimate and never opposite to Clause-10 of the Switch Coverage of the State authorities dated 10.07.2013 and/ or the mandate of Statutory Rule i.e. SR 2 (18), as held by a Coordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma) in its choice dated 14.12.2023 handed in CWP No.8605 of 2023 titled as Anurag Chadha versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and consequently, the judgment so rendered is overruled and the query is answered accordingly.“
Senior Advocate Ok.S. Banyal represented the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Ramakant Sharma represented the Respondents.
Case Temporary
The query earlier than the Courtroom was whether or not clubbing of keep for the aim of switch of staff of the Schooling Division is opposite to Clause-10 of the Switch Coverage of the State Authorities.
The petitioner had assailed order of switch whereby she had been transferred as a Educated Graduate Trainer (Medical) from GHS Khianpatt, District Kangra to GSSS, Chobia (Bharmaur), District Chamba, H.P. This switch had been effected by clubbing her earlier keep in and round GHS, Khianpatt, District Kangra. The switch order was assailed on the bottom that the respondents couldn’t have clubbed her earlier keep because it was towards the judgment handed by the Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom in Anurag Chadha versus State of Himachal Pradesh (2023).
Nevertheless, the query within the stated case was referred to a bigger bench by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel.
Courtroom’s Evaluation
The Courtroom opined that switch coverage merely lays down the rules for switch which aren’t solely non-statutory however even non-justiciable. Thus, such tips like some other tips can all the time be altered or amended or different by additions/subtractions by the Competent Authority sometimes, even when, the impact thereof is to complement or for that matter supplant the sooner provisions.
“Along with the above, it’s greater than settled that the place the Structure doesn’t require an motion to be taken solely by laws or there is no such thing as a current legislation to fetter the manager energy of the Union (or a State, because the case could also be), the Authorities could be not solely free to take such motion by an govt order or to put down a coverage for the making of such govt orders as event arises, but additionally to alter such orders or the coverage itself, as typically because the Authorities so requires, topic in fact to the situations that such change should be made within the train of an inexpensive discretion and never arbitrarily. It has to make sure that such change complies with Article 14, in order that the individuals equally circumstanced will not be handled unequally and it could in any other case be topic to judicial overview”, the Courtroom added.
Whereas referring to the definition of “switch” in State Guidelines, the Courtroom noticed that the clubbing of keep for the aim of switch of an worker doesn’t alter the that means of “switch”.
The Division Bench noticed that, “As soon as the guiding ideas framed by the Division of Personnel regulating the switch of State authorities staff are held to be non-justiciable in addition to non-statutory, due to this fact, such tips like some other tips can all the time be altered or amended or different by additions/subtractions by the Competent Authority sometimes, even when, the impact thereof is to complement.”
Accordingly, the Petition was determined and the Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom overruled its earlier judgment in Anurag Chadha versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (2023).
Trigger Title: Monika Katna V. State of Himachal Pradesh (Impartial Quotation: 2024:HHC:17029 )
Look:
Petitioner: Ok.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate with Advocate Uday Singh Banyal.
Respondents: Advocates Ramakant Sharma, Navlesh Verma, Sharmila Patial ( Extra Advocates Common) Raj Negi (Deputy Advocate Common)
