Nishitha Bali vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that while the impugned transfer order was not sustainable on the grounds of not completing the normal tenure, it would not interfere with the order. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had proceeded on maternity leave and that the post occupied by her could not be left vacant. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the tenure violation but found compelling reasons to uphold the order to ensure the smooth functioning of the GST Wing at Amb. The Court did not find any DO Note recommending the petitioner's transfer, but noted that the petitioner had benefited from a DO Note previously. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for posting at a convenient station on the ground of a couple case, as her husband is working as an Executive Engineer in the Central University, Dehra, and to consider any representation made by her sympathetically. The authority concerned was directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner while passing appropriate orders.

Facts

The petitioner, Nishitha Bali, an Assistant Commissioner at ACST&E, GST, Amb Circle, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, challenged an order dated 16.09.2025 transferring her to ACST&E Excise, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner argued that the transfer violated the Transfer Policy as she had not completed her normal tenure of three years and that the order was based on a DO Note from an extra-constitutional authority. The respondents, State of Himachal Pradesh and another, submitted that the transfer order was issued with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who heads the Excise and Taxation Department. While the Court did not find evidence of a DO Note recommending the petitioner's transfer, it noted that the petitioner herself had benefited from a DO Note in the past. The Court also acknowledged that the petitioner had proceeded on maternity leave and that her post could not remain vacant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned transfer order dated 16.09.2025 is in violation of the Transfer Policy, specifically concerning the completion of the normal tenure of posting, and if so, what is the consequence? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of the Transfer Policy). 2. Whether the impugned transfer order is vitiated by being based on a DO Note issued by an extra-constitutional authority, and if so, is it sustainable? (Question of law, turning on administrative law principles regarding the validity of official actions). Petitioner's contentions: The transfer order is in violation of the Transfer Policy as the petitioner has not completed her normal tenure of three years at her current posting. The transfer is based on a DO Note issued by an extra-constitutional authority. Respondents' contentions: The transfer order has been issued with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who is the head of the Department of Excise and Taxation. The petitioner herself has been a recipient of a DO Note in the past, which facilitated her transfer from Mandi to Amb, and therefore, she is estopped from claiming that the impugned transfer is based on a DO Note. The transfer order has been issued by the Hon’ble Chief Minister after condoning the delay and approving the inter-wing transfer.