IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7170 of 2010 Decided on 07.01.2011 Hira Mani and another ..…Petitioners. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ….Respondents Board Ltd. and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) Both the petitioners, who are husband and wife are in the employment of the respondent-Board. Whereas, petitioner No.1 is Superintendent Gr.II, petitioner No.2 is Clerk. Both of them belong to Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi and are presently posted in Shimla. 2. Initially, in February, 2008, both the petitioners were transferred from Shimla to Tissa. At that time, implementation of the transfer orders was stayed at the intervention of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, in August, 2009, petitioner No.1 was again transferred from Shimla to Rohru, though on promotion. That 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 transfer was also initially stayed by this Court during pendency of the writ petition and finally with a direction that he shall be permitted to stay at Shimla upto 31.3.2010, keeping in view the on going academic session of his children. 3. However, unfortunately, in the meantime, he met with an accident leading to multiple fractures of right knee resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%. 4. Now again petitioner No.1, along with his wife petitioner No.2, has been transferred to Kangra. According to the petitioners their latest transfer is at the instance of respondent No.3, who belongs to their native area. In this regard, reference is made to the letters written by respondent No.3 to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, seeking their transfer either to Chamba or Una. 5. According to respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioners have been transferred purely on administrative grounds and in public interest on completion of their normal tenure of present postings, which are of over five years. It is further stated that throughout their service career, the petitioners remained posted in District Shimla. 6. After noticing the respective contentions on behalf of the appearing parties and without going into an elaborate discussion of the same, suffice it to say that transfer is a necessary concomitant of employment. The Courts have very limited powers to interfere in the matters of transfer, except where a case of proven mala fides is made out. In an ideal 3 situation relationship between an employee and employer ought to be based on harmony, yielding maximum public good. 7. On 18.11.2010, the following order was passed in this matter by the Division Bench:- “CMP No. 11012 of 2010 Allowed. CWP No. 7170 and CMP No. 11011 of 2010 2nd respondent will file an affidavit as to whether the file was originated on the basis of a complaint of 3rd respondent and if so, what are the contents of the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner will get instructions as to whether by the end of the academic year, the petitioner could be posted in District Kangra. In case the petitioner has not been relieved as on today, he will not be relieved and further proceedings in that regard shall be deferred till that time. Post on 16.12.2010. Copy ‘Dasti’.” 8. In compliance of the above order dated 18.11.2010, the requisite affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, adverting to the background facts of the case. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though both the petitioners have completed their normal tenure of posting in Shimla and are liable to be transferred anywhere in the State, yet keeping in view the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed, i.e the on going education of their children at the University level and state of 4 health of petitioner No.1, they may not be disturbed at this stage. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioners making representations to respondent No.2 along with copy of this judgment within one month from today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next two months, by which time hopefully academic session of the children of the petitioners would also be over, in accordance with law and justice, by taking into consideration the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners as above with regard to on going education of their children and medical condition of petitioner No.1, by exploring the possibility whether the petitioners, who constitute a couple case, can be conveniently adjusted against one of five places of their choice in the Districts of Mandi, Solan and Bilaspur, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, if so desired. Till decision on the representations interim order dated 18.11.2010, shall continue. 10. Before parting, I cannot help but observe that this case reveals a very sorry state of affairs when an employee under transfer rushes to the Court each time when he or she is transferred and maneuveres to stay at a place of his choice, may be under the apprehended threat of contempt of Court. Equally, it is expected from the respondent-Board to frame a 5 comprehensive transfer policy and give effect to the same uninfluenced by any outside pulls and pressures. 11. The petition, so also the pending CMP(s), if any stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th January, 2011. Lsp*