Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, June 30
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the online transfer policy of the Haryana government cannot be interpreted as strictly prohibiting transfer of an employee before five years of stay in an area in the state.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj’s judgment came on a petition filed by Naresh Kumar and other petitioners seeking quashing of “Transfer Drive-2022” by the State of Haryana and other respondents to the extent that they were being forcefully transferred as per a list dated June . 10.
it can’t be rewritten
The High Court cannot rewrite the policy for the State or badly incorporate any clause, especially when the policy itself is not the subject of challenge. —Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Appearing before a bench of Justice Bhardwaj, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the government has notified the online transfer policy for “Inspector of Taxation, Assistant Field Cadre and Clerk of Field Cadre in the Excise and Taxation Department”.
Under the policy, a minimum tenure of five years was prescribed for an employee at a station before transferring an employee. In an effort to substantiate the arguments, reference was made to the provisions of the Online Transfer Policy.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and considering the relevant sections, Justice Bhardwaj stressed upon the observation of the procedure to be followed by the State Government, allowing an employee to participate in the online transfer policy on completion of three years’ stay. was given. Specific Area. It is also mandatory that the employee has to compulsorily participate in the online transfer policy after completion of five years tenure in a given field.
Justice Bhardwaj further observed that the interpretation of the clause cannot be taken to mean that the State Government was barred from the transfer of employees before five years of stay in an area. The proposed interpretation was not based on a meaningful reading or proper interpretation of the transfer policy.
Justice Bhardwaj said: “There is nothing to suggest that in the process of implementation of the transfer policy, the State Government has been restricted or prohibited from making any transfers except in the manner prescribed under the policy. In the absence of prohibition, no such interpretation or meaning can be assigned to the transfer policy which would imply a constraint on the power of the State.”
Dismissing the petition, Justice Bhardwaj observed that any constraint/restriction should be specifically laid down in a policy/rule or “necessary and available by natural presumption”. Any derived inference that is not supported by the plain reading and meaning of the policy may not be applied. Rather, it would be tantamount to enforcing a prohibition not covered in the policy. “The High Court cannot rewrite the policy for the State or badly incorporate any clause, especially when the policy itself is not the subject of challenge.”