Laxman Singh v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And Others

CWP No.22666 of 2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22666 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.14.08.2019 Laxman Singh

...Petitioner

Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others

...Respondents

Present:

Mr. Laxman Singh, petitioner in person.

None for respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) In this case notice of motion was issued on 4.10.2017 but Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam has not filed reply so far. Prayer in writ petition is for quashing of order dated 22.09.2017 whereby petitioner has been transferred from Hassanpur Palwal to Taoru. As per contention of petitioner, who appeared in person, he joined respondent Nigam on 15.10.1997 on the post of Assistant Lineman and thereafter became Assistant Foreman (AFM) w.e.f. 15.10.2013. On 13.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) transferred from office of SDO (OP), S/Divn, Hodel to Hathin and after two months from SDO(OP), S/Divn Hathin to Hodel vide order dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P-2). After completion of nine months, again transferred from Hodel to Hassanpur vide order dated 29.06.2017 (Annexure P-3).

When petitioner had completed just three month again vide order dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure P-4) transferred from Hassanpur, Palwal to Taoru, Sohna. The aforementioned transfer is not in accordance with transfer policy, much less, in public interest so that petitioner could be transferred under certain exigencies. Petitioner stated to have submitted representation but no action has been taken. Family is totally PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.08.

CWP No.22666 of 2017 (O&M) -2dependent on him as he has two sons and daughter studying in B.Sc. and parents are of old age, thus, impugned order is liable to be quashed. In the absence of any reply as well as any representation on behalf of respondent Nigam or counsel, I proceed to decide case on merits. It is strange that respondents have not chosen to contest the case by filing reply as notice of motion was issued way back in 2017. Detailed chart showing transfers of petitioner is reproduced herein below:- Sr.

No.

From To Office Order No. & Date SDO (OP) S/Divn Hodel SDO (OP) S/Divn Hathin 13.07.2016 SDO (OP) S/Divn Hathin SDO (OP) S/Divn Hodel 21.09.2016 SDO (OP) S/Divn Hodel, under (OP) Divn, Palwal SDO (OP) S/Divn Hassanpur under (OP) Divn. Palwal 29.06.2017 SDO (OP) S/Divn Hassanpur under (OP) Divn. Palwal SDO (OP) S/Divn Taoru, under XEN (OP), Divn. Sohna 22.09.2017 In the absence of any explanation, I am of the view that no public exigency has been expressed supporting case of transfer. In such circumstances, in my view, impugned order was not maintainable in eyes of law and hereby set aside. However, it will not prevent respondents to pass general order of transfer strictly following any policy, if applicable, considering all facts in accordance with law and not in the manner and mode as noticed above.

Writ petition stands allowed in above terms.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 14, 2019 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.08.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document