Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Law Officers had come up before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP- PIL-86-2026 (cid:415)tled as Court On Its Own Mo(cid:415)on Vs. State of Haryana, in which order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) came to be passed, direc(cid:415)ng the States of Punjab and Haryana to furnish exact details regarding exact place of deputa(cid:415)on of DA/DDA/ADA. Pursuant thereto, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had issued Direc(cid:415)ons dated

15.05.2026 (Annexure P-4), direc(cid:415)ng State of Haryana to terminate all deputa(cid:415)on of 285 DA/DDA/ADA and to post them to undertake court work in all 23 districts of Haryana within one week.

#4. Ld. Counsel argues that even though the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner was not on deputa(cid:415)on but was on a regular pos(cid:415)ng in pursuance to the order passed by the Addi(cid:415)onal Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, but without any applica(cid:415)on of mind and without considering the objec(cid:415)ve of CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 3 - the above order passed by the Division Bench, the impugned order has been passed, transferring the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner from Sonipat to Gurgaon.

#5. Ld. counsel further submits that therea(cid:332)er, a Model Online Transfer Policy dated 25.06.2026 was formulated by the respondent- State, wherein discre(cid:415)on has been given to individual departments to fix their own minimum tenure, prescribed tenure, etc. It is submi(cid:425)ed that (cid:415)ll date, no such minimum tenure, prescribed tenure has been framed for the Prosecu(cid:415)on Department, and no online transfer has started in pursuance to Model Online Transfer Policy, 2026.

#6. Learned counsel contends that even though no transfer drive was taken in pursuance to the Model Online Transfer Policy dated

25.06.2026, the impugned order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) has been passed, whereby pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner has been transferred from the office of District A(cid:425)orney, Sonipat to the office of District A(cid:425)orney, Gurugram.

#7. It is pointed out that the name of the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner finds men(cid:415)on at Sr. No. 8 of the order dated 13.07.2026 and the transfer order has been passed only within short tenure of 3 years 6 months of his pos(cid:415)ng at Sonipat and the same is in viola(cid:415)on of the online transfer policy of Assistant District A(cid:425)orneys/Deputy District A(cid:425)orneys no(cid:415)fied on

21.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) as the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner has not completed the maximum prescribed tenure of five years.

#8. Ld. counsel for the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner submits that the impugned transfer is also in viola(cid:415)on of the Model Online Transfer Policy dated CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 4 -

25.06.2026 as the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner has been transferred from the office of District A(cid:425)orney, Sonipat to the office of District A(cid:425)orney, Gurugram within a short tenure of 3 years 6 months from his pos(cid:415)ng at Sonipat.

#9. Ld. counsel further submits that the wife of the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner, namely Pushpa, is suffering from paralysis/chronic disease due to brain strokes (CVA/IC-Bleed) suffered by her mul(cid:415)ple (cid:415)mes (on 09.06.2025 and

06.05.2026) and is bedridden and disabled. She is under con(cid:415)nuous medical treatment, and chronic disability cer(cid:415)ficates have also been issued by Civil Surgeon, Rohtak and Department of Neurosurgery, PGIMS, Rohtak. Furthermore, the elderly mother of the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner, is suffering from asthma(cid:415)c disease. In this regard, learned counsel refers to the medical record of his wife and mother (Annexure P-10) and submits that the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner is the only son in his family to look a(cid:332)er his bedridden wife and mother. Transfer to District Gurugram would cause severe hardship to his family and adversely affect his wife's treatment and well-being.

#10. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ pe(cid:415)(cid:415)on be allowed and the impugned transfer order be set aside.

#11. Per contra ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions of the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner and pointed out that the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner is residing in Rohtak and commutes daily from Rohtak to Sonipat. It is submi(cid:425)ed that when the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner can commute daily from Rohtak to Sonipat, he can do the same from Rohtak to Gurugram. Further submits that transfer is an exigency of service and cannot be interfered with by this Court. CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 5 -

#12. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the par(cid:415)es. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner.

#13. This Court has the utmost sympathy for the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner in view of the medical issues being faced by his wife and mother, however, it is not disputed by ld. counsel for the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner that the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner is residing at Rohtak and commutes daily from Rohtak to Sonipat. Even in the memo of par(cid:415)es of the present writ pe(cid:415)(cid:415)on, the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner is shown to be a resident of “House No. 103B/29, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak (Aadhaar Card No. 9070 6370 8300, Mobile No. 80914- 13088). Working as Assistant District A(cid:425)orney in the office of District A(cid:425)orney, Sonipat, Haryana.” Even in the medical record of the wife and mother of the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner, Annexure P-10 pertains to hospitals situated in Rohtak. It is not disputed by the ld. Counsel for the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner that the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner commutes daily from Rohtak to Sonipat.

#14. Furthermore, it cannot be discounted that the first Division Bench of this Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the fact that against 22 Judicial Courts in the said District Court of Sirsa, only 10 Assistant District A(cid:425)orneys were posted. Consequen(cid:415)ally, the Court on its own mo(cid:415)on had passed an order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) in CWP-PIL-86-2026 (cid:415)tled as Court on its own Mo(cid:415)on vs. State of Haryana direc(cid:415)ng the States of Punjab and Haryana to furnish details regarding the exact place of deputa(cid:415)on of each DA/DDA/ADA and where are they CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 6 - presently working. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) came to be passed in the said CWP-PIL-86-2026 direc(cid:415)ng as follows: - “6. By way of writ of mandamus, this Court directs the State of Haryana to terminate the deputa(cid:415)on of all 285 District A(cid:425)orneys, Deputy District A(cid:425)orneys and Assistant District A(cid:425)orneys, who are posted on deputa(cid:415)on to other departments, boards and corpora(cid:415)ons and post them to undertake the Court work in all 23 districts of State of Haryana, within a period of one week and report compliance in that regard.”

#15. It is admi(cid:425)ed that transfer of the pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner has been made in pursuance to above direc(cid:415)ons issued vide order dated 15.05.2026. It has also been pointed out by the learned State Counsel that a(cid:332)er passing of the above said order dated 15.5.2026, an intensive exercise of ra(cid:415)onalisa(cid:415)on of all the Courts was undertaken to determine as to which ADA/DDA is suitable for which District Court in terms of the nature and quantum of work in each Court; and it is only therea(cid:332)er that the present transfers were effected. As such, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order.

#16. Even further, it is the established posi(cid:415)on in law that transfer is an exigency of Service and cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court. In the facts noted above, it is clear that the administra(cid:415)on of Jus(cid:415)ce in the State of Haryana is liable to be be adversely affected, in case this Court interferes with the impugned order. Reference is made to a judgment passed by this Court in Dr. Kirandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 7 - (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 par(cid:415)cular place. Judicial interference in transfer ma(cid:425)ers is permissible only when the transfer order is vi(cid:415)ated 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 se(cid:425)led that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a right to be remained posted at a par(cid:415)cular place of pos(cid:415)ng and the transfer policy is mere guidelines and is not legally enforceable under Ar(cid:415)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:415)tu(cid:415)on 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 ques(cid:415)on which is required to be examined is whether such pos(cid:415)ng and transfer policy confers any enforceable right in favour of respondent No.1 so as to challenge his transfer purportedly made on administra(cid:415)ve ground before the Tribunal. Guidelines have been framed by the authori(cid:415)es to regulate their internal working and with a view to deal with different situa(cid:415)ons 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 CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 8 - is not within the cadre or the authority is not competent to order transfer or it is in viola(cid:415)on 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 viola(cid:415)on 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 pos(cid:415)ng husband and wife at one sta(cid:415)on even if their employers be different. The Court found that the only thing required in terms of the guidelines is that the departmental authori(cid:415)es should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administra(cid:415)on. Thus, no right is conferred on an employee to remain at the same place even if administra(cid:415)ve 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 :- "Who should be transferred where, is a ma(cid:425)er for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer of vi(cid:415)ated by mala fides or is made in viola(cid:415)on 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 representa(cid:415)on with respect to his transfer the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administra(cid:415)on. The guidelines say that as far as CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 9 - 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 par(cid:415)cular place or posi(cid:415)on, he should con(cid:415)nue in such place or posi(cid:415)on 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 essen(cid:415)al condi(cid:415)on of service in the absence of any specific indica(cid:415)on to the contra, in the law governing or condi(cid:415)ons of service. The administra(cid:415)ve guidelines for regula(cid:415)ng transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authori(cid:415)es for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving of denying the competent authority to transfer a par(cid:415)cular 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 administra(cid:415)ve guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable right unless shown to be vi(cid:415)ated by mala fides or is made in viola(cid:415)on of any statutory provisions.

#10. In Na(cid:415)onal Hydroelectric Power Corpora(cid:415)on 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 exercise of power or stated to be in viola(cid:415)on of CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 10 - statutory provisions prohibi(cid:415)ng any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a ma(cid:425)er of rou(cid:415)ne, as though they were the appellate authori(cid:415)es subs(cid:415)tu(cid:415)ng their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administra(cid:415)ve exigencies of the service concerned.

#11. In S.L. Abbas's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the jurisdic(cid:415)on of the Central Administra(cid:415)ve Tribunal is akin to the jurisdic(cid:415)on of the High Court under Ar(cid:415)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:415)tu(cid:415)on of India in service ma(cid:425)ers. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdic(cid:415)on apply equally to the Tribunal created under Ar(cid:415)cle 323-A of the Cons(cid:415)tu(cid:415)on. The Central Administra(cid:415)ve Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority si(cid:427)ng in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot subs(cid:415)tute 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 (cid:415)me 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 CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 11 - or the disciplinary authori(cid:415)es to impress upon them the necessity of finalising the departmental proceedings expedi(cid:415)ously or even within a fixed period, it does not mean that a(cid:332)er 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 jurisdic(cid:415)on of the Tribunal in an applica(cid:415)on under sec(cid:415)on 19 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal se(cid:427)ng aside the order of transfer is illegal exercise of the jurisdic(cid:415)on 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 administra(cid:415)ve authori(cid:415)es but their non-adherence will en(cid:415)tle an employee to bring such facts to the no(cid:415)ce of the superior authori(cid:415)es but does not confer any right to seek quashing of the transfer either in an applica(cid:415)on under sec(cid:415)on 19 of the Act or under Ar(cid:415)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:415)tu(cid:415)on of India. Under sec(cid:415)on 19 of the Act or under Ar(cid:415)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:415)tu(cid:415)on, transfer order can be interfered with if it is shown to be vi(cid:415)ated by mala fide or in viola(cid:415)on of the statutory provisions or having been passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order. Since none of the three condi(cid:415)ons are sa(cid:415)sfied in the case set up by respondent No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. " CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 12 -

#6. To the same effect is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mool Chand Tewa(cid:415)a 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 ma(cid:425)ers and has held that the same is not permissible in exercising the jurisdic(cid:415)on under Ar(cid:415)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:415)tu(cid:415)on of India. In the said judgment, it has been held as under: - "10. In view of the foregoing enuncia(cid:415)on 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 allega(cid:415)on are made, (iii) viola(cid:415)on of any statutory provision (iv) the allega(cid:415)on 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 se(cid:425)led norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdic(cid:415)on under Ar(cid:415)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:415)tu(cid:415)on of India."

#18. In view of the above, the present pe(cid:415)(cid:415)on stands Dismissed. Pending applica(cid:415)on(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

23.07.2026 Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Whether Reportable Yes / No Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE