Bhram Dutt v. Registrar Coop Societies Haryana And ORS.



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

  Date of Decision:  

Bhram Dutt !Petitioner

Versus

Registrar Co$Op Societies Haryana and others ...Respondents


  !"#$%&
! &'!$&( $&'

# Present: $ Mr.Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

$$

&'!$&( $&'

#")*+ The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to quash the transfer order dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure P$1), whereby, the petitioner, who is serving as L.A.O in the Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited, has been transferred from Jhajjar to Dadri. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed against the transfer policy (Annexure P$5) of the Government of Haryana. It is also contended that after retirement from the Indian Air Force, the petitioner settled at Rohtak with his family and joined the respondent - Bank as L.V.O. in June, 2008. Vide order dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure P$2), he was transferred from Kalanaur to Bahadurgarh, which transfer was later cancelled. Again vide

 order dated 22.8.2012 (Annexure P$3), he was transferred from Kalanur to Ateli, but later on, he was adjusted against vacancy at Jhajjar.

It is the case of the petitioner that since his wife is posted as Sanskrit Teacher at Village Chhara, District Jhajjar, therefore, his case is covered by the Government of Haryana Policy (Annexure P$5), which provides that `
   

                  

  .'

Having heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the paper$book, this Court does not find merit in the contentions.

The petitioner has not alleged any malafide against the respondent authorities. Nor can from the instances of transfer as indicated in the petition, any bias or arbitrariness be inferred. In the absence of any allegation of malafide in a case like the present one where a transfer order is under challenge, there is hardly any scope for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its extra$ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. So far as the Policy Annexure P$5 is concerned, though Learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown as to how the said policy is applicable to the employees of the respondent - Bank, yet, the tenor of the said policy itself says that the State shall generally give posting to the serving couple at

 same or nearby stations as far as possible. It neither restricts the State nor put a complete bar on it to transfer them at separate places, if the exigency so requires. Further these administrative guidelines do not confer any legally enforceable rights which can be enforced through a Court of law.

It has been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. that transfer is not a punishment, rather it is an exigency of the service. In this regard the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme In
 

  



  $",may be usefully referred to:

                      

                         

  !    "

#$%& '%#()*+,-(           

 .

        

                        

       



               
     

    /        
     

0  


            ) 1 2-     

            

 

                   

            3

     

                                

           

           

     

    

     

     4  

        

            

 5            

    0      

    

    

  

         

        .                                  

    

  
          

     
     

                Further, it is again neither pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order was passed by an authority not competent to pass the order or that any of the provisions of law were violated, while passing the impugned order.

Hence, finding no case for interference in the impugned order, the petition is dismissed.

August 24, 2015  &'!$&( $&'

# gian "#'(!