Punjab & Haryana High Court: No Employee Can Claim To Remain Posted At A Particular Place Or Post Of His Choice

The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that no employee can claim to remain posted at a particular place or post of his choice.

The Court was considering Writ Petitions seeking challenge to order whereby she was transferred and ordered to be retired voluntarily from her post, although she withdrew VRS request.

The single bench of Justice Deepak Gupta observed, "A Division Bench of this Court has categorically held in Parveen Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) SCT 596 that the transfer policy of the State for transfer and posting of its employees from one place to another is for the guidance of its officers. The guidelines are not enforceable to challenge the transfer. The transfer of a Government employee is a normal feature and incident of service and does not alter his service conditions. No employee can claim to remain posted at a particular place or post of his choice."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rishabh Gupta while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Saurav Verma.

Facts of the Case

Petitioner was a Scale-I Officer in the Respondent-Bank. She was posted at Model Town Branch, Hoshiarpur, when she was transferred to Shri Har Gobindpur, District Gurdaspur. However, later the Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. It was contended by the Petitioner that on account of her medical condition, she had applied for medical leave and further made representation to reconsider her case of transfer. As her request was not acceded to, she filed the present writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is due to retire on 31.07.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation and it was because of her medical condition that Petitioner had applied for VRS, which was pending consideration and as such, impugned transfer order was in violation of Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, it was contended from the Respondent's side that Petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and had conceded the fact that the officer had already joined at Hoshiarpur Branch at her place. It was submitted that due to the interim-stay order, an anomalous situation had arisen as two officers were sitting on the same seat, as the charge had already been handed over to the replaced employee and Petitioner was just sitting ideal and earning salary without doing any work. Referring to the Regulation 27(4) of the “Punjab Gramin Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018”, the Counsel for the Respondent contended that once Notice for voluntary retirement has been made to the competent authority, the employee is precluded from withdrawing the notice except with the specific approval of such authority; provided that request for such withdrawal is made before intended date of retirement. It was contended that in the present case, no approval of the competent authority was taken by the petitioner, so as to withdraw her application of voluntary retirement

It was further the contention of the Respondents that Petitioner cannot claim particular place of posting and that transfer being an incidence of service, any policy issued by the department serves only as a guideline. It was argued that any such policy issued by the State Government, or any such authority does not vest an enforceable right in an employee and as such, transfer policy can never be taken to pedestal of a statutory rule.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset, answering to the question as to whether, the policy, as relied upon by the petitioner, vests an enforceable right in the petitioner so as to seek her posting in her Home Region or at a particular place or to be kept posted at present place of posting or not, referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Kourav.

"Transfer is an incidence of service. There is no vested right in favour of an employee to remain posted at a particular station or to be transferred on some particular post of his/her choice," the Court observed.

It noted that Courts or the Administrative Tribunals are not expected to interfere in transfer matters unless the orders are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration.

"In this case, petitioner has not alleged any mala fides or extraneous consideration in transferring her from Hoshiarpur to Shri Har Gobindpur. Her only contention is that her transfer is against the Transfer Policy 2023. However, as per the settled legal position, transfer policies issued by the State Government or any other competent authority, containing stipulations therein, do not vest an enforceable right in the employee. The Transfer Policy can never be taken to the pedestals of a statutory Rule. These polices are at best in the nature of guidelines for the appropriate department, while issuing orders of transfer as has been held in Smt. Bhupa Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2017(1) SCT 428," the Court observed.

It also found false, the contention of the Petitioner that she was submitting her application for voluntary retirement because of the transfer and rather she had clearly stated that she was seeking voluntary retirement because of her medical condition.

"Thus, what is apparent is that application for withdrawal of the application for VRS was made by the petitioner not only after getting the stay order dated 23.05.2024 from this Court, but also after the competent authority had already accepted her application for VRS vide order dated 27.05.2024. The only inference that can be drawn is that petitioner was virtually threating the respondents either to allow her to be posted at Hoshiarpur; otherwise, she will seek voluntary retirement or will proceed on medical leave," the Court concluded.

The Petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Babita Kaushal vs. Chairman, Punjab Gramin Bank And Others (2025:PHHC:025485)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Rishabh Gupta

Respondent- Advocate Saurav Verma, Advocate Preeti Grover

Click here to read/ download Order