Personal inconvenience no ground to set aside transfer order: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 17

Refusing to interfere in the transfer of an employee who claimed his ailing wife required care and attention, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a court cannot be guided by emotions and set aside the order on this count.

“The transfer of the petitioner-employee cannot be set aside on this count by the court. It is for the employer to consider any personal inconvenience that a transfer may cause to an employee and/or his family and the court cannot be guided by emotions,” Justice Alka Sarin asserted.

The ruling by Justice Sarin came on a petition filed by a Municipal Corporation Chief Engineer challenging order dated January 15, whereby he was transferred to another Municipal Corporation in Haryana.

His counsel, among other things, had contended that the impugned order was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had already been transferred thrice in the last four years. The present transfer was just 17 months after the last transfer. He further submitted that the petitioner was due to retire in 21 months. As such, practical purpose would not be served by posting him to Hisar for the remaining period of his service.

Justice Sarin observed that another argument raised by the senior counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned transfer would cause great hardship and suffering to the petitioner, whose wife was suffering from certain health issues and needed constant support and care. The petitioner in support of this contention had placed reliance upon medical prescriptions.

Justice Sarin added that transfer was an exigency of service. The principle of law laid down in a catena of decisions was that transfer order was a part of an employee’s service conditions. It should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, unless the court found that the order was mala fide, the service rules prohibited such transfer, or that the authorities were not competent to pass the orders.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Sarin added that these parameters, for the court to interfere in the impugned transfer order, were not attracted in the present case. The petitioner was governed by the Haryana Municipal Corporation Employees (Recruitment and Conditions) Service Rules, 1998. Rule 12 made it patent that he was liable to serve at any place in any Municipal Corporation in the state of Haryana on being ordered so to do by the appointing authority or the state government.