IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4923 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.9.2011 Kesar Singh Khamta …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent No.5 Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner, who is working as Treasury Officer, has challenged the order dated 1st June, 2011 passed by the Special Secretary (Finance)-cum-Director (Treasuries, Accounts & Lotteries), H.P. 2. The petitioner was transferred from Kasauli to Solan in the year 2010 and joined as such. On 1st June, 2011 he was transferred from Solan to Nankhari. The petitioner was relieved on 2nd June, 2011. He filed a writ petition and that writ petition 2 was disposed of but it is apparent that no notice was issued to the private respondents and even reply of the State was not called for since the petition was directed to be treated as representation and the relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as follows:- “2. It is seen that the petitioner was working at Solan only for the last 11 months. Still further it is seen that the petitioner has left only seven months to retire from service. Petitioner has severe health problems as can be seen from Annexure P-3. As per policy, an employee is to be given the place of choice subject to the availability of vacancy within two years of retirement. According to the petitioner, he can be accommodated at District Treasury, Solan, Sub Treasury, Kasauli and Sub Treasury, Rajgarh. Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file an appropriate representation. In the event of petitioner filing representation before the 2nd respondent, the same shall be considered by the said respondent adverting to the submissions made therein and appropriate action in accordance with law be taken within another one week. Relieving of the petitioner from Solan and his joining at Nankhari will be subject to the order thus passed by the 2nd respondent. It is made clear that in case any substitute order for arrangement at Nankhari can be made, the petitioner may not be compelled to join the said station till representation, as above, is decided and it will be open to the petitioner to avail leave of the kind due.” 3 3. Thereafter the Special Secretary (Finance) heard the appeal and the relevant portion of his order reads as follows:- “The representation of Shri Kesar Singh was considered carefully alongwith other relevant record. It is pertinent to mention here that according to Para 3(e) of the Guiding Principles for Effecting Transfers of the State Govt. employees, the officials likely to retire within two years of service, efforts should be made to give them postings in areas as convenient as possible subject to vacancy. In the instant case the post of Treasure Officers is not currently vacant at any of the stations desired by Shri Kesar Singh. However, there are 25 vacant posts of Treasure Officers (List attached) at various places. Shri Kesar Singh was offered a choice of these 25 vacant posts for his adjustment. Shri Kesar Singh refused adjustment at any of these 25 places. He insisted that he should be posted to as Treasury Officer at Sub Treasury, Kasauli. It is pertinent to note that presently the post of Treasury Officer at Sub Treasury, Kasauli is filled up and not vacant. In fact, Shri Gian Chand is posted at Sub Treasury, Kasauli who is in short stay there. Accordingly, the contention of Shri Kesar Singh for adjustment to Sub Treasury, Kasauli cannot be accepted because the post there is not vacant and is not covered under the Guiding Principles of Effecting Transfers of the State Government employees. As regards the plea taken by Shri Kesar Singh on health grounds wherein he has “Cervical spondylosis with degenerative changes”, it is pertinent to mention here that Shri Kesar Singh refused his adjustment at any of the 25 vacant posts. Many 4 of such vacant posts are at low attitudes and with requisite medical facilities nearby.” 4. A bare perusal of this order shows that the petitioner was told that there were 25 vacant posts of treasury officers lying vacant at Himachal Pradesh and he was asked to choose any one of these 25 places and the Special Secretary agreed to transfer him to any one of these places. The petitioner did not accept any of these 25 places but has now approached this Court. The stand of the respondents is that in fact the petitioner had to be transferred because there was a complaint against him made by the NGO Federation, Solan and thereafter the transfer was ordered. 5. Be that at it may, no employee, even an employee on the verge of his retirement, can claim that he must be posted at a particular place. Keeping in view the orders passed by the Division Bench, the administration took a very lenient view of the matter and offered to post the petitioner at any of the 25 places where the post of Treasury Officer was lying vacant. Can any employee insist that some other employee be transferred and he be adjusted at a place suitable to him? In my 5 considered opinion, the answer has to be empathetic no. It is not for the Court to run the administration. Once the administration has taken such a liberal view, made a reasonable offer, if the employee does not accept the same he does so at his own peril. 6. The other allegation of the petitioner is that he has been transferred at the behest of respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 is the President of the NGO’s Federation and is working as a Senior Assistant in the office of CDPO, Solan. There is no manner of doubt that the complaint was made by the Federation but making a complaint by itself does not mean that the person has to be transferred. That decision has to be taken at the highest level by some other person. In this case preliminary inquiry was conducted by the ADM and the Additional District Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was harassing the employees unnecessarily. This Court cannot sit in judgement over the preliminary inquiry of the ADM. It cannot be believed that the ADM was also influenced by respondent No.5. Furthermore, it cannot be believed that the Special Secretary who gave an offer to the petitioner to be transferred at any 25 6 places could have been influenced by respondent No.5. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 19th September, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.