Transfer order quashed where purported administrative exigency masked an employee-requested replacement transfer.

The petitioner, a Driver serving in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Excise), Central Zone, Mandi, had been posted at Mandi since May 2022.

By transfer order dated 18.03.2026, he was transferred from Mandi to the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Kullu, purportedly due to a shortage of Drivers at the Headquarters.

The petitioner challenged the transfer order and the subsequent rejection of his representation, contending that the transfer was arbitrary, contrary to the applicable transfer policy, and particularly harsh because he was due to superannuate in less than two years.

The High Court initially directed maintenance of status quo regarding the petitioner’s posting and sought instructions on whether he could be retained at Mandi or accommodated at a nearby station in view of his nearing retirement.

The State maintained that the transfer was necessitated by the shortage of Drivers.

However, the transfer order showed that a private respondent posted at Shimla had been transferred to Mandi in the petitioner’s place, without transfer travelling allowance or joining time, while the petitioner was transferred to Kullu with such benefits.

The private respondent did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer from Mandi to Kullu was arbitrary and liable to be quashed when the stated administrative reason was a shortage of Drivers, but another Driver was simultaneously posted to Mandi in his place.

Whether the High Court should interfere with the transfer order notwithstanding the petitioner’s completion of approximately four years at Mandi, considering that he was a Driver and was due to superannuate in less than two years.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to continue at Mandi until superannuation.

The Court applied the principle that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and courts generally do not interfere merely because an employee has been transferred, particularly where the employee has completed a substantial tenure at a station.

However, judicial interference is warranted where the transfer order appears arbitrary, lacks bona fide administrative justification, or is demonstrably influenced by a request-based accommodation of another employee.

The Court also considered the constitutional standards of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as invoked by the petitioner in challenging the transfer.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

Although the petitioner had completed four years at Mandi, the Court found that the Department’s stated justification—shortage of Drivers at the Headquarters—was inconsistent with the actual transfer arrangement.

If a Driver was genuinely required at Kullu, the Department could have transferred the private respondent, who was serving at Shimla, to Kullu or otherwise rationally adjusted the postings.

Instead, the petitioner was moved from Mandi to Kullu with travelling allowance and joining time, while the private respondent was transferred from Shimla to Mandi without those benefits.

This disparity indicated that the petitioner’s transfer was made to accommodate the private respondent’s request rather than to meet a bona fide administrative requirement.

In addition, the petitioner’s status as a Driver and his impending superannuation in less than two years strengthened the case for judicial intervention, despite his having completed four years at Mandi.

The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the transfer order, and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue serving at Mandi until his superannuation.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.