|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the transfer of Sr. Project Officer Ramesh Kumar Thakur of HIMURJA from Kangra at Dharamshala to Chamba, holding that the move was made on the recommendation of a private contractor with no role in the department's affairs.
Justice Sandeep Sharma passed the oral order on December 15, 2025, in CWP No. 17913 of 2025, reserving liberty to the department to transfer the officer in future only in public interest or on administrative exigency and in accordance with law. The petitioner challenged the office order dated November 15, 2025, alleging that his transfer was actuated by a UO note issued from the office of the Chief Minister on the basis of a letter sent by respondent No. 2, a private contractor and proprietor of M/s Himalayan Techno. He alleged that the contractor, who had been awarded 500 kW solar power projects at Sera (Hamirpur), Muhal (Kangra) and Jol (Bilaspur), used political connections to seek his transfer after the department and the petitioner repeatedly reminded him to complete the delayed works. The court noted that respondent No. 2 was neither an elected representative nor an officer of the department but had still recommended the petitioner's transfer, which was acted upon by the authorities. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including State of Himachal Pradesh vs Tara Devi and Division Bench rulings in Mukesh Kumar and Ravi Bhandari cases, the judge reiterated that transfers cannot be ordered at the behest of persons unconnected with the administrative hierarchy or extra-constitutional authorities. The judgment underlined that while posting and transfer of employees is the prerogative of the employer, such powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily or as a tool to accommodate or adjust individuals without any demonstrated administrative exigency. It emphasised that no transfer should be ordered merely on recommendations of ministers, MLAs or party workers and that complaints, if any, must first be examined by the administrative department before action is taken. The court also took into account the petitioner's claim that he had suffered a paralytic attack in 2013, was undergoing treatment for hypertension and prostate issues, and was 55 years old, making a distant posting at Chamba onerous. Observing that the petitioner had served only about two years and a few months at his present station, the court held that in the facts of the case, justice would be served by setting aside the impugned transfer order dated November 15, 2025. (ANI)
|
