IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.: 5259 of 2010 and 5260 of 2010. Date of decision: 18.10.2010 CWP No.5259 of 2010 Satya Thakur … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others …Respondents. CWP No.5260 of 2010 Sarojni Devi … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. . For Smt. Satya Thakur: Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Smt. Sarojni Devi: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate. For Smt. Salochna Devi: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. These two petitions are being disposed of by way of common judgement since the questions of law involved are identical and the factual matrix of the cases overlaps. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Satya Thakur, Smt. Salochna Devi and Smt. Sarojni Devi are all working as female health workers. It is also not 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 disputed that all three of them right from their initial appointment had worked only in one block i.e. block Nirmand and have never served outside this block. Vide order dated 14th September, 2009 Smt. Satya Thakur was posted at Sub Centre Kasholi, District Kullu vice one Smt. Sunita Devi. It is not disputed that Satya Devi joined at Kasholi on 7th December, 2009. 3. Smt. Sarojni Devi, who was working as female health worker at Ghattu District Kullu was transferred and posted as such to the Health Sub Centre at Reymu in District Kullu vice Salochna Devi, who was transferred in her place to Ghattu vide order dated 11.1.2010. It is also not disputed that these two transfers were given effect to and both Sarojni Devi and Salochna Devi joined at their respective place of posting in Jan/Feb.2010. The net result was that Smt. Satya Thakur joined in December at Kasholi whereas Smt. Sarojni Devi joined at Reymu and Smt. Salochna Devi joined at Ghattu in Jan/Feb.2010. 4. Thereafter, the impugned annexure P-3 was passed on 9.8.2010 whereby Salochna Devi was transferred from Ghattu to Reymu, Smt. Sarojni Devi from Reymu to Kasholi and Smt. Satya Thakur from Kasholi to Ghattu. This order has been challenged both 3 by Satya Thakur and Sarojni Devi. The stand of the private respondent is that this is not a transfer but an adjustment since all the three ladies have been transferred within a radius of 25-30 kilometers and it has also been averred that since private respondent Salochna Devi has joined at Reymu no relief should be granted to the petitioners. 5. The stand of the State is that the transfer orders are within the domain of the authorities passing such order. It has been averred that both Sarojni Devi and Satya Thakur have served in Nirmand block throughout their career and therefore, they have now been transferred. No other reason has been given which would justify the order annexure P-3. 6. If the stand of the State is to be accepted all three ladies should have been posted outside their block. Admittedly, all three have been posted within Nirmand block itself. There is no explanation worth the name to show why these three ladies who had joined only in December, 2009 and January/February, 2010 at their respective place of posting had to be shifted from one station to another disturbing all three of them within a short period of six months. It is not the stand of the State that it received a representation from any 4 one of the ladies that she for some compelling reasons could not work at the place of posting. True it is that the employer has the right to transfer its employee but if transfers are to be effected within a period of six to eight months, as has been done in the present case, then the employer at least while filing an affidavit in Court should give reasons which necessitated the passing of such orders within a short span of six to eight months. This has not been done by the State and it clearly shows that neither any public interest nor administrative exigency was involved in the transfers in question. 7. As far as the plea raised by the private respondent Salochna Devi that she had joined is concerned the fact is that though the impugned order was passed on 9th August, 2010, it appears to have been conveyed only on 17th August and thereafter she joined on 27th August and one of the petitioners was relieved. Even if an employee has been relieved that does not mean that such an employee cannot challenge the transfer order. Here, as I have held above, the transfer order is totally arbitrary since it has not been occasioned due to any administrative exigency or public interest. Therefore, this objection is also rejected. 5 8. In view of the above discussion, both the petitions are allowed. The order dated 9th August, 2010 is quashed and resultantly Smt. Salochna Devi shall go back to Ghattu, Sarojni Devi shall function at Reymu and Satya Thakur at Kasholi till they complete their normal tenure. No costs. 18th October, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.