Ajay Kumar vs. State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 was not a transfer order. The petitioner, who was already posted in Nurpur Circle, had been given the additional charge of MPB Kandwal. This additional charge was withdrawn, and he was assigned the complete charge of Nurpur Circle. The Court reasoned that since the distance between MPB Kandwal and Nurpur is less than 12 Kms, it cannot be considered a transfer. Furthermore, the petitioner had been working at MPB Kandwal since October 2024 and had completed more than eight months in that additional capacity. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, agreeing with the respondents that it was a withdrawal of an additional charge, not a transfer. The petition was dismissed. However, the Court noted that the private respondent had previously served at MPB Kandwal for over a year and a half, and suggested that the department might consider posting a different person there, especially since the Transfer Policy limits postings at Barriers to one year.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Nair, an Assistant State Taxes and Excise Officer, challenged an order dated 18.10.2024. This order withdrew the charge of MPB Kandwal, Revenue District Nurpur, from the petitioner and assigned him the complete charge of Nurpur Circle. The petitioner contended that the order violated the Transfer Policy as he had not completed his normal tenure and was being transferred to accommodate a private respondent who had already served at Kandwal for over a year and a half. The petitioner also raised concerns about the lack of government accommodation in Nurpur. The Court had previously directed the respondents to verify accommodation availability and the reason for the private respondent's posting at Kandwal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.10.2024, which withdrew the additional charge of MPB Kandwal from the petitioner and assigned him the complete charge of Nurpur Circle, constitutes a transfer in violation of the Transfer Policy, particularly concerning the petitioner's tenure and the posting of a private respondent (Section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1997, and the Transfer Policy). Petitioner's Arguments: - The impugned order is a transfer and violates the Transfer Policy as the petitioner has not completed his normal tenure. - The transfer is intended to accommodate the private respondent, who has already served at Kandwal for more than one and a half years. - There is no government accommodation available in Nurpur, which will dislodge his family. Respondents' Arguments: - The petitioner has not been transferred; rather, the additional charge of MPB Kandwal, which was given to him in addition to his duty at Nurpur, has been withdrawn. - The distance between MPB Kandwal and Nurpur is less than 12 Kms, so it cannot be considered a transfer. - The petitioner has concealed facts, as he has been divested of the charge of MPB Kandwal and not transferred from Nurpur. - As per the Transfer Policy, an Excise Officer can be transferred after one year, and the petitioner has been working at MPB Kandwal since October 2024, completing more than eight months.