Classification Based On Employee Grade For Inter-Utility Transfers Violates Article 14 Constitution: Punjab & Haryana High Court
A policy barring inter-utility transfers only for Group C & D staff, while exempting higher officers, is an unreasonable classification lacking rational nexus.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the newly notified policy prohibiting transfers between power utilities must apply equally to all employees regardless of their cadre. The Court observed that the status-based discrimination in transfer policies fails the test of just, reasonable, and fair procedure required under the constitutional philosophy of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by upholding the general prohibition on inter-utility transfers except for those covered under specific exceptions like national emergencies or mutual deputations. Crucially, it struck down Section 2 of the Policy on Prohibition of Inter-Utility Transfers dated April 7, 2026, as violative of the constitutional principles and directed that the prohibition must apply uniformly to all employees of UHBVN and DHBVN.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed, “…it is unclear what purpose is served by this status-based discrimination, especially considering that the objective of the policy (supra) has essentially been to promote administrative efficiency and accountability. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that denying the opportunity of interutility transfer, in such strict terms, only to the Group C and D is arbitrary and unreasonable as it bears no rational nexus to the objective of the policy…”.
Advocate Ravinder Singh Dhull appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Vikrant Pamboo appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, employees of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN), challenged orders denying their requests for inter-utility transfers. They contended that a past practice since 2006 allowed such transfers, often subject to employees surrendering their seniority.
However, despite various previous rounds of litigation and interim directions, the utilities continued to resist these transfers, leading the Court to demand a coherent and codified policy to end administrative "whims and fancies."
The litigation saw multiple stages, including a Division Bench judgment in which directed the utilities to consider cases similar to those granted in previous selection years. Following persistent non-compliance and subsequent contempt petitions, the Court on December 8, 2025, directed the State to formulate a clear policy. In response, the UHBVN notified a comprehensive "Policy on Prohibition of Inter-Utility Transfers" dated April 7, 2026.
The Court first clarified that while transfer is an incident of service and not a vested right, any policy regulating it must be transparent and fair. Justice Brar noted that UHBVN and DHBVN are distinct autonomous entities, and the Court generally avoids interfering in inter-utility movements. However, the Court found a fatal flaw in Section 2 of the 2026 Policy, which restricted the prohibition only to Group C and D employees.
The Court reasoned that if the objective of the policy was to "avoid administrative complexities and potential misuse of power", there was no intelligible differentia to exclude Group A and B officers from its ambit.
“Since such matters involve internal management and policy decisions particular to the employer, the scope of judicial review in this respect is fairly limited. Substituting the decision of the relevant authority with its own when the former is better placed to assess the requirements of the department would be manifestly unjust”, the Bench noted.
The Court granted petitioners the liberty to initiate contempt proceedings if the utilities are found entertaining transfer requests for any category of employee in violation of this uniform application.
“In the event UHBVN or DHBVN are found to be entertaining transfer requests by any employee, irrespective of their group or category, the petitioners shall retain the liberty to initiate contempt proceedings against erring Nigam under Article 215 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench further noted.
Cause Title: Jaswinder Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:054927]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Ravinder Singh Dhull, Navnit Sharma, Advocates.
Respondents: Vikrant Pamboo, Prince Singh, Advocates.