Not Unreasonable: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Policy Giving Preference To Employees With Higher Age In Transfer

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the Online Transfer Policy giving preference to people with higher age in transfer observing that the same is not unreasonable.

The Court was considering Writ-Petitions seeking to set-aside the said policy.

The single-bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed, "Every employee is bound to grow and turn 50 plus. The respondent as per its wisdom has made classification which seems to be just and fair. There seems to be reason for making the said classification. The respondent has formed an opinion that employees with higher age should be given preference. They certainly have better experience but more family responsibilities and health issues. This classification is not going to affect young employees because at later stage of their life, they are also going to be benefited."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sajjan Singh while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate B.R. Mahajan.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioners were working as Sub-Divisional Engineers (Civil) with the respondent-Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board. The cadre strength of SDE in the Respondent Department was less than 80. The Respondent taking cue from State Model Transfer Policy framed its Online Transfer Policy and the same was approved by different officers at different levels. It was also put up before the Chief Minister who approved the same. The Petitioners were feeling aggrieved from few clauses of the Online Transfer Policy on the ground that these clauses are arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent has earmarked 60 marks for age factor. Higher the age, higher the marks. The Petitioners claimed that younger employees would get lower marks, thus, they would not get posting of their choice.

The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the impugned policy is contrary to model policy framed by the State Government as there are negative marks for negative performance as once an employee has been departmentally punished for his act and omission, he cannot be subjected to negative marking because it would amount to double jeopardy. It was argued that the Respondent has adopted model transfer policy framed by State Government, however, substantial amendments have been made which are contrary to said policy. It was also argued that there is no provision whereunder the impugned policy has been framed and in the absence of source, policy could not be framed.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the impugned policy is not a piece of legislation and it is not mandatory and sacrosanct and that there is grievance redressal mechanism to resolve problems of the employees. It was averred that the State Government has framed model policy whereby general principles have been laid down and while forwarding the model policy to different organizations have specifically pointed out that departments shall frame their online transfer policy based primarily on these general principles and with such changes as deemed necessary and submit the same to Chief Minister for approval. The respondent framed its policy keeping in mind model policy and put up the same before the Chief Minister who approved the same.

It was contended that transfer is part and parcel of service and no employee has vested or fundamental right to claim place of posting and it is prerogative of the employer to place any employee at any place. It was further contended that the respondent framed the impugned policy for the purpose of transparency and to avoid favouritism. In case any employee has genuine grievance, he may approach Grievance Committee which would certainly redress the grievance.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that it is a settled proposition of law that scope of interference in policy matters is very limited and the persons who are making policy are more competent to know need of the people as well as need of the organization. It added that every employee who is working with respondent is bound to retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years and is bound to grow and turn 50 plus.

The Court concluded that the classification seems to be just and fair and was made for a reason and therefore cannot said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Cause Title: Gaurav Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (2025:PHHC:027414)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Sajjan Singh, Advocate Vishal Punia,

Respondent- Senior Advocate B.R. Mahajan, Advocate Nikita Goel, Advocate Samarth Sagar

Click here to read/ download Order