IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 573 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.10.2011 Veena Kumari …. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral) 1. This case reflects a shocking state of affairs where due to interference in the transfer of employees at the behest of politicians only to help certain employees, administrative exigencies and public interest is thrown to the winds and transfers are ordered only to accommodate the favoured employees at the place of their choice. 2. Transfer is an incidence of service. When any person joins government service, especially a service which is a State cadre, like in the present case, they know that they can be transferred at any station. 2 3. The present case is a classic case where the petitioner and the private respondent have through out their service career remained near their home stations but are not willing to move even 50 Kms from the home stations and want to be accommodated where they desire. Normally, this Court is reluctant to interfere in administrative orders passed by the department, but when orders are passed not in the public interest or on account of administrative exigency, this Court would be shirking its duties if it did not rectify the injustice being done. 4. Petitioner Smt. Veena Kumari is a Ward Sister. She belongs to Mamoon in District Pathankot which is at a distance of about 17-18 Kms from Nurpur. The material on record indicates that she first remained posted at Gangath from 1985 to 1998 i.e. for 13 years, at Kotla from 1998 to 2000, at Nurpur from 2000 to 2001, for four months at Bhoranj which is in District Hamirpur and again at Gangath from 2001 to 2009 and then she was posted to Jawali in the year 2009 and from Jawali she was posted to Indora and then to Nurpur. Her grievance is that she has not been permitted to complete her normal stay at Indora and has been transferred after about 8 months. 3 5. On the other hand respondent No.3 Smt. Satya Devi was posted at Sarkaghat from 1984 to 1987, at Una from 1987 to 1992, at Indora from 1992 to 1998, at Fathepur from January 1998 to May 1998 and thereafter again at Indora from 1998 to September 2009. She was posted to Jawali thereafter. She after joining at Jawali remained on leave for a substantially long period and has again been transferred to Indora on 31.5.2010. Admittedly, respondent No.3 has also constructed a house near Indora. 6. From the material on record it is apparent that the petitioner Smt. Veena Kumari remained virtually within a distance of about 50 Kms from Mamoon through out her service career. As far as respondent No.3 is concerned, the first eight years she spent in Sarkaghat and Una, but from 1992 she has been at Indora except for a brief period of five months at Fatehpur, which is also barely less than 40 Kms from Indora. Thereafter, she was posted to Jawali which is hardly about 50 to 60 Kms from Indora but she was still not satisfied even though she adjusted close to Indora and made a request that she be posted back to Indora itself. 7. I have called for the record and I find that the Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble Health Minister 4 had sent a proposal with regard to transfer of respondent No.3 from Jawali to Indora and at the same time had recommended that one Smt. Neelam Kumari posted at CHC, Nurpur be transferred to CHC, Jawali and Smt. Veena Kumari, the present petitioner, be transferred to Nurpur. In the said note it was clearly mentioned that the Director Health is requested to examine this proposal and put on the departmental file as desired by the Hon’ble Health Minister. 8. This Court has repeatedly held that when such recommendations are made the administrative department must examine these recommendations honestly and truthfully. Here the Director Health should have informed the Hon’ble Minister for Health that respondent No.3 had been serving at Indora since 1992 except for a brief period which she had spent at Fatehpur and had been transferred to Jawali less than a year back. It seems that no such exercise was done and on the basis of the proposal furnished the transfer orders were issued without any application of mind. Who will bear the costs of the transfer allowances paid to the petitioner Smt. Veena Kumar and Smt. Neelam Kumari, who have both been transferred after a short period of less than one year? Was it not the duty of the Director Health to 5 examine whether all the persons had completed their normal tenure or not? Transfer does not only affect the employees but it also affects their children and spouses. Frequent transfers are, therefore, not desirable but at the same time nobody has a vested right to continue at one station for twenty long years. 9. This clearly shows that in the Department of Health no proper system is followed of transfers. The facts of this case clearly indicate that persons like the petitioner and respondent No.3 who enjoy some clout in the Government, whether political or bureaucratic, are kept either at their home stations, or in and around their home stations for years to come. They have never served in hard or difficult areas and never in tribal areas even though they are working in a State cadre and the persons who have no political and bureaucratic clout are made to serve in hard areas through out their service career. This obviously will give rise to heart burning and complaints by such employees who are not treated equally like these persons. 10. Normally, I would have quashed the orders of transfer but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has joined and she has also been adjusted at Nurpur which is close to Mamoon and always remained posted at Kangra, I feel she is not entitled 6 to any relief. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed and it is directed that the Director Health, who held the office at the relevant time, shall personally pay the transfer and travelling allowances which were paid to Smt. Veena Kumari and Smt. Neelam Kumari on account of adjusting respondent No.3. The State shall recover this amount within a period of six weeks from today and an affidavit shall be filed by the Principal Secretary (Health) in this regard. It is made clear that in future if this Court comes across further such instances of this nature not only the transfer allowance will be recovered from erring official but exemplary costs be also imposed upon him. This is a fit case where the Director Health may consider posting of both the petitioner and respondent No.3 outside Kangra keeping in view the fact that they have always served in Kangra District. No costs October 18, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge