State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the 12 petitioners herein were appointed as Mali/Labourer (Group-D) on daily wages during 1988 to 2001 by the respondents in the Saraswati Forest Range, Divisional Forest Officer, Kaithal. However, no written letters CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 2 of 10 of appointment were issued to the petitioners. After bifurcation of Forest Department into Forest Department (Territorial) and Environment & Wildlife Department, the petitioners were appointed in Environment & Wildlife Department at Saraswati Conservation Reserve (Seonsar) Kaithal.

#3. It is submitted that the petitioners were not regularized despite continuous Service; whereas similarly situated employees and even number of juniors to the petitioners had been regularized in view of the Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003/10.02.2004 and

18.06.2014/20.06.2014. In fact, vide verbal orders, respondents had terminated services of the petitioners. As such, petitioners had raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court claiming their re-instatement. Said labour reference was allowed; pursuant to which petitioners had joined back. Thereafter, Petitioner No.5 had filed CWP-33993-2025 titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others claiming regularization. Vide order dated 24.12.2025, the said Writ Petition was allowed. As the order dated 24.12.2025 was not complied with by the respondents, petitioner No.5 had filed COCP-1557-2026 titled as Parveen Kumar vs. Sh. Sudhir Rajpal, I.A.S. Additional Chief Secretary, (ACS) to Govt. of Haryana and others, which is pending for 10.08.2026.

#4. It is submitted that petitioners are residents of Kaithal and working on daily wages @ Rs.460/- per day with the hope that in future respondents will regularize their services. Instead, vide impugned order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), petitioners have been transferred. In CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 3 of 10 this circumstance, it is very difficult for the petitioner to survive at a distant place of more than 150 KMs from their residence.

#5. He accordingly prays that present Writ Petition be allowed; and impugned transfer order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) be set aside.

#6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and pointed out that very vague and general averments have been made in the present Writ Petition. No details are mentioned with respect to petitioners’ service. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

#7. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioners.

#8. Perusal of the present Writ Petition shows that petitioners have stated that they were appointed as Group-D employees between the years 1988 to 2001. It has been admitted that no formal letters of appointment were ever issued to the petitioners. It has further been stated in para 4 of the present Writ Petition that services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondents vide verbal orders of termination. Needless to say, no order of termination has been placed on record. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to apprise this Court even with regard to date of such verbal termination. CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 4 of 10

#9. It has further been stated that the petitioners have thereafter filed reference which was allowed by the Labour Court directing their reinstatement and continuity of Service. However, details of reference, or even date of Award is not mentioned in the Writ Petition, what to say of producing a copy of the alleged Award. Further, it is not mentioned as to on what dates, the petitioners had joined back.

#10. Thereafter, it is claimed that petitioners had filed CWP-33993- 2025 titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, which was allowed vide order dated 24.12.2025. The said order is not appended with the present Writ Petition. Moreover, there is no averment in the present Writ Petition that the present 12 petitioners were Writ Petitioners in the said CWP-33993-2025. As such, it is not clear as to whether any order of regularization was passed in their favour or not.

#11. However, upon enquiry in the DMS, it has emerged that aforesaid CWP-33993-2025 titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, had been filed by only present petitioner no.5 namely Parveen Kumar. It would therefore appear that no orders of regularisation were passed in favour of the remaining 11 petitioners herein. At least, no such order has been brought to the notice of this Court. Even, it has not been stated that similar writ petitions were filed by any of the other petitioners. Rather, in para 10 of the present Writ Petition, petitioners have admitted that they are working on daily wages @ Rs.460/- per day. CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 5 of 10

#12. It has further been averred that the due to non-compliance of order dated 24.12.2025, COCP-1557-2026 titled as Parveen Kumar vs. Sh. Sudhir Rajpal, I.A.S. Additional Chief Secretary, (ACS) to Govt. of Haryana and others, was filed by petitioner No.5, namely, Parveen Kumar. DMS shows that no doubt, said COCP-1557-2026 was filed by petitioner No.5.

#13. Notwithstanding any of the above, the grievance of the petitioners is that vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), petitioners have been transferred. It has been contended that it will be difficult for the petitioners to ‘survive’ far from home.

#14. There is no merit to the said contention. It is established position in law that transfer is an exigency of service and cannot be lightly interfered with. Reference is made to a judgment passed by this Court in Dr. Kirandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2875022 decided on 23.03.2026; wherein it is held as under: - “Transfer is an incidence of service, and no employee has a legally enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place. Judicial interference in transfer matters is permissible only when the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides, issued by an incompetent authority, or violates statutory provisions.” The relevant paras of the said judgment read as under:- “5. Law on the issue is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a right to be CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 6 of 10 remained posted at a particular place of posting and the transfer policy is mere guidelines and is not legally enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar and another : 2008 (1) SCT 704, while considering the similar issue has held as under :- "7. xx xx xx xx xx Apart from the said fact, the question which is required to be examined is whether such posting and transfer policy confers any enforceable right in favour of respondent No.1 so as to challenge his transfer purportedly made on administrative ground before the Tribunal. Guidelines have been framed by the authorities to regulate their internal working and with a view to deal with different situations evenly. Such guidelines are not statutory in nature. Any departure from the said guidelines by itself does not give right to an employee to successfully challenge his transfer. The transfer can be challenged on limited grounds i.e., when the same is not within the cadre or the authority is not competent to order transfer or it is in violation of the statutory rules or actuated by mala fide. The transfer is normal incidence of service and an employee has no right to resist his transfer on the basis of alleged violation of the guidelines. The issue is not res integra. In Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992(1) SCT 161 : AIR 1992 SC 519, Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of the guidelines for posting husband and wife at one station even if their employers be different. The Court found that the only thing required in terms of the guidelines is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration. Thus, no right is conferred on an employee to remain at the same place even if administrative exigency and transfer policy do not permit it. 8. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1995 (4) SCT 455 : AIR 1993 SC 2444, Hon'ble Supreme Court held to the following effect :- CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 7 of 10 "Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer of vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guidelines, however, do not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right". 9. In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (2) SCT 368 : AIR 2004 SC 2165, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no government servant can contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. The administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving of denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service. 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 unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions. 10. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhagwan, 2002 (1) SCT 236 : AIR 2001 SC 3309, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 8 of 10 exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. 11. In S.L. Abbas's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in service matters. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A of the Constitution. The Central Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. 12. A Full Bench of this Court in Jagir Singh Kanungo v. The State of Punjab through the Secretary Vigilance, Punjab, Chandigarh, 1993 (2) SCT 128 : 1993 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 376, has the occasion to interpret the guidelines issued by the State of Punjab for conclusion of the inquiry proceedings in a time bound manner. It was held that if the enquiry proceedings are not completed within the aforesaid period, no right accrues to the employee to approach the Court of law for enforcement of those guidelines. It was held to the following effect :- "If the State Government have issued certain guidelines for the guidance of the various departments or the disciplinary authorities to impress upon them the necessity of finalising the departmental proceedings expeditiously or even within a fixed period, it does not mean that after the expiry of that period, a right in law accrues to the employee to approach the Court of law for the enforcement of those guide-lines... " Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters and the scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in an application under section 19 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 9 of 10 order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of transfer is illegal exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal. The guidelines are not statutory and do not confer any legally enforceable right on the basis of which an employee can challenge his transfer. No doubt, normally the guidelines are to be adhered to by the administrative authorities but their non-adherence will entitle an employee to bring such facts to the notice of the superior authorities but does not confer any right to seek quashing of the transfer either in an application under section 19 of the Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under section 19 of the Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution, transfer order can be interfered with if it is shown to be vitiated by mala fide or in violation of the statutory provisions or having been passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order. Since none of the three conditions are satisfied in the case set up by respondent No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. "

#6. To the same effect is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mool Chand Tewatia v. Union of India and others : 2016 (2) SCT 427, wherein it has been held that the transfer in an incidence of service and the Courts are not to interfere unless the Courts finds that the transfer is due to mala fide or against the service rules.

#7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 279, has examined the scope of judicial review in the transfer matters and has held that the same is not permissible in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, it has been held as under: - "10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non- joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the CWP-23140-2026 (O&M) 10 of 10 allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."”

#15. Even otherwise, no extenuating circumstances have been made out by the petitioners for quashing of impugned transfer order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-1).

#16. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.

#17. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

28.07.2026 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No