Clubbing Stay Of Employee At Different Postings For Transfer Purposes Doesn't Violate Definition Of “Transfer” Under State Rules: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that clubbing the period of stay for the transfer of employees does not violate the State's Transfer Policy or the statutory rules governing transfers. In holding thus, the court overruled an earlier conflicting judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “We are at a complete loss to understand how the clubbing of stay for the purpose of transfer of an employee violates the aforesaid provisions as it does not alter the meaning of 'transfer."
Background Facts:
On March 22, 2024, the petitioner, Monika Katna, a trained graduate teacher, was transferred from Government High School, District Kangra, to Government Senior Secondary School, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. The transfer took place by clubbing her previous stay at nearby postings around Government High School, District Kangra, to calculate her total tenure at the station.
Challenging the transfer, the petitioner contended that the Education Department had wrongly clubbed her earlier postings, as this was against Clause 10 of the Transfer Policy of the State Government, dated 10th July 2013, and against the mandate of Statutory Rule 2(18).
She relied on the judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023, where a single judge bench of the High Court had held that clubbing of stay was contrary to the Transfer Policy and applicable statutory rules.
So, when the petitioner's petition came before another Single Bench, he referred the question of clubbing of stay to a Larger Bench.
Findings:
The Division Bench remarked that transfer policies are merely a set of guidelines used to regulate transfers. These guidelines are not laws and can't be enforced by employees through the Courts.
In Union of India v/s S.L. Abbas, 1993, the Supreme Court held that “the guideline in respect of transfer does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right. It further held that it is trite that non- statutory directions are not enforceable in the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable right and therefore, unless the transfer order is shown to be vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provision, the same cannot be interfered with”.
The Court noted that in this case, the guiding principles framed by the Department of Personnel are not laws and can't be enforced in court; the Government has the power to change, add to, or remove these guidelines at any time.
It stated that such policies fall within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, till the time they do not cross the limitations or restrictions laid down by the Constitution of India.
The Court further stated that it is settled law that where the Constitution does not require an action to be taken only through legislation, the Government can act through executive orders or frame policies whenever needed. The Government can also amend these orders or policies whenever it deems necessary. However, any such change must be made with reasonable discretion and not arbitrarily. Also, the change must comply with article 14, ensuring that people in the same situation are treated equally.
As regards the applicability of Statutory Rule 2(18) of the Transfer Policy of State Government, the Court noted that it defines a “transfer” as “the movement of a Government servant from one headquarter station in which he is employed to another such station, either- (a) to take up the duties of a new post, or (b) in consequence of a change of his headquarters.”
The Court thus concluded that the clubbing of stay of an employee at different postings for transfer purposes does not change or violate this definition of “transfer”.
Accordingly, the Court held that the office memorandum allowing the clubbing of stay for transfers in the Education Department is completely legal and valid and not contrary to the transfer policy.
Finally, the Court overruled the earlier judgment in Anurag Chadha versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.
Case Name: Monika v/s State of HP & others
Case No.: CWP No.2734 of 2024
Date of Decision: 06.06.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior with Mr. Uday Singh Advocate. Advocate Banyal,
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.