Only recourse against transfer is representation: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the only recourse available to an employee aggrieved by a transfer issued in contravention of the policy or guidelines is to make a representation before the officer concerned or the “superior authority”. The assertion came as the Bench reiterated that an employee holding a transferable post had no vested right to remain posted at a particular place.

“So far as the transfer of an employee is concerned, it is for the competent authority to decide as to who should be transferred, where to be transferred, when to be transferred and even where transfer order is issued in contravention of the transfer policy or guidelines, the only recourse open for the aggrieved person would be to make a representation before the officer who issued the order or to the superior authority. An employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place,” Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa asserted.

The judgment comes at a time when the high court has a substantial number of petitions challenging transfers on grounds, including contravention of the policy. The ruling was made in a case involving a Junior Engineer transferred multiple times. Initially posted at Bhabat under Zirakpur division, he was transferred to Jalandhar through an order dated September 8, 2023. The petitioner challenged the order before the high court contending that the transfer violated the transfer policy of December 16, 2019, and amounted to punishment.

The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another respondent, on the other hand, defended the transfer by arguing that it was necessitated by a complaint alleging the provision of false electric connections to certain colonies and a shopping complex without obtaining the requisite NOCs. An inquiry was conducted. The competent authority approved the transfer of the petitioner, along with other officials, to non-public dealing positions, based on the report submitted by the Chief Engineer (Enforcement), advocate Gagneshwar Walia contended on a respondent’s behalf.

He further contended that the transfer policy merely served as a set of guidelines without any legal backing, making it unenforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Walia also cited a Supreme Court ruling, which upheld transfers made following complaints and inquiries related to financial irregularities.

After considering the facts, Justice Nalwa held that the petitioner’s transfer was made in the interest of better administration and was not a punitive measure or a result of extraneous reasons. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the transfer order, the court dismissed the writ petition.