IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026 Neeraj Kumar … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Dangi, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of CerƟorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) qua the peƟƟoner to the extent of posƟng of the peƟƟoner from the office of District AƩorney, Sonipat to the office of District AƩorney, Gurugram as the transfer order has been passed only aŌer within short tenure of 3 years 6 months of his posƟng at Sonipat and the same is in violaƟon of the online transfer of Assistant District on policy AƩorneys/Deputy District AƩorneys noƟfied 21.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) as the peƟƟoner has not completed the maximum prescribed tenure of five years; and to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus direcƟng the respondents to allow the peƟƟoner to complete his NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 2 - tenure in the office of District AƩorney, Sonipat as he was posted in the office of District AƩorney, Sonipat vide order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure P-2). 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that the peƟƟoner had joined the ProsecuƟon Department on 22.11.2017. On 21.01.2022, the Government of Haryana had introduced Online Transfer Policy (Annexure P-1). Vide order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure P-2), peƟƟoner was transferred from Jind to Sonipat. PeƟƟoner had joined as Deputy District AƩorney in Sonipat on 28.12.2022. 3. Ld. counsel refers to the submissions made in paragraph 8 of the present writ peƟƟon to submit that the issue regarding shortage of Law Officers had come up before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP- PIL-86-2026 Ɵtled as Court On Its Own MoƟon Vs. State of Haryana, in which order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) came to be passed, direcƟng the States of Punjab and Haryana to furnish exact details regarding exact place of deputaƟon of DA/DDA/ADA. Pursuant thereto, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had issued DirecƟons dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-4), direcƟng State of Haryana to terminate all deputaƟon 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 peƟƟoner was not on deputaƟon but was on a regular posƟng in pursuance to the order passed by the AddiƟonal Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, but without any applicaƟon of mind and without considering the objecƟve of NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 3 - the above order passed by the Division Bench, the impugned order has been passed, transferring the peƟƟoner from Sonipat to Gurgaon. 5. Ld. counsel further submits that thereaŌer, a Model Online Transfer Policy dated 25.06.2026 was formulated by the respondent- State, wherein discreƟon has been given to individual departments to fix their own minimum tenure, prescribed tenure, etc. It is submiƩed that Ɵll date, no such minimum tenure, prescribed tenure has been framed for the ProsecuƟon 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 peƟƟoner has been transferred from the office of District AƩorney, Sonipat to the office of District AƩorney, Gurugram. 7. It is pointed out that the name of the peƟƟoner finds menƟon 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 posƟng at Sonipat and the same is in violaƟon of the online transfer policy of Assistant District AƩorneys/Deputy District AƩorneys noƟfied on 21.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) as the peƟƟoner has not completed the maximum prescribed tenure of five years. 8. Ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner submits that the impugned transfer is also in violaƟon of the Model Online Transfer Policy dated NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 4 - 25.06.2026 as the peƟƟoner has been transferred from the office of District AƩorney, Sonipat to the office of District AƩorney, Gurugram within a short tenure of 3 years 6 months from his posƟng at Sonipat. 9. Ld. counsel further submits that the wife of the peƟƟoner, namely Pushpa, is suffering from paralysis/chronic disease due to brain strokes (CVA/IC-Bleed) suffered by her mulƟple Ɵmes (on 09.06.2025 and 06.05.2026) and is bedridden and disabled. She is under conƟnuous medical treatment, and chronic disability cerƟficates have also been issued by Civil Surgeon, Rohtak and Department of Neurosurgery, PGIMS, Rohtak. Furthermore, the elderly mother of the peƟƟoner, is suffering from asthmaƟc disease. In this regard, learned counsel refers to the medical record of his wife and mother (Annexure P-10) and submits that the peƟƟoner is the only son in his family to look aŌer 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 peƟƟon be allowed and the impugned transfer order be set aside. 11. Per contra ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions of the peƟƟoner and pointed out that the peƟƟoner is residing in Rohtak and commutes daily from Rohtak to Sonipat. It is submiƩed that when the peƟƟoner 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. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 5 - 12. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. 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 peƟƟoner. 13. This Court has the utmost sympathy for the peƟƟoner in view of the medical issues being faced by his wife and mother, however, it is not disputed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that the peƟƟoner is residing at Rohtak and commutes daily from Rohtak to Sonipat. Even in the memo of parƟes of the present writ peƟƟon, the peƟƟoner 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 AƩorney in the office of District AƩorney, Sonipat, Haryana.” Even in the medical record of the wife and mother of the peƟƟoner, Annexure P-10 pertains to hospitals situated in Rohtak. It is not disputed by the ld. Counsel for the peƟƟoner that the peƟƟoner 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 AƩorneys were posted. ConsequenƟally, the Court on its own moƟon had passed an order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) in CWP-PIL-86-2026 Ɵtled as Court on its own MoƟon vs. State of Haryana direcƟng the States of Punjab and Haryana to furnish details regarding the exact place of deputaƟon of each DA/DDA/ADA and where are they NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh 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 direcƟng as follows: - “6.By way of writ of mandamus, this Court directs the State of Haryana to terminate the deputaƟon of all 285 District AƩorneys, Deputy District AƩorneys and Assistant District AƩorneys, who are posted on deputaƟon to other departments, boards and corporaƟons 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 admiƩed that transfer of the peƟƟoner has been made in pursuance to above direcƟons issued vide order dated 15.05.2026. It has also been pointed out by the learned State Counsel that aŌer passing of the above said order dated 15.5.2026, an intensive exercise of raƟonalisaƟon 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 thereaŌer that the present transfers were effected. As such, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. 16. Even further, it is the established posiƟon 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 administraƟon of JusƟce 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, NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh 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 parƟcular place. Judicial interference in transfer maƩers is permissible only when the transfer order is viƟated 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 seƩled that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a right to be remained posted at a parƟcular place of posƟng and the transfer policy is mere guidelines and is not legally enforceable under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon 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 quesƟon which is required to be examined is whether such posƟng and transfer policy confers any enforceable right in favour of respondent No.1 so as to challenge his transfer purportedly made on administraƟve ground before the Tribunal. Guidelines have been framed by the authoriƟes to regulate their internal working and with a view to deal with different situaƟons 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 NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 8 - is not within the cadre or the authority is not competent to order transfer or it is in violaƟon 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 violaƟon 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 posƟng husband and wife at one staƟon even if their employers be different. The Court found that the only thing required in terms of the guidelines is that the departmental authoriƟes should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administraƟon. Thus, no right is conferred on an employee to remain at the same place even if administraƟve 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 maƩer for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer of viƟated by mala fides or is made in violaƟon 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 representaƟon with respect to his transfer the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administraƟon. The guidelines say that as far as NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh 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 parƟcular place or posiƟon, he should conƟnue in such place or posiƟon 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 essenƟal condiƟon of service in the absence of any specific indicaƟon to the contra, in the law governing or condiƟons of service. The administraƟve guidelines for regulaƟng transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authoriƟes for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving of denying the competent authority to transfer a parƟcular 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 administraƟve guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable right unless shown to be viƟated by mala fides or is made in violaƟon of any statutory provisions. 10. In NaƟonal Hydroelectric Power CorporaƟon 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 violaƟon of NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 10 - statutory provisions prohibiƟng any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a maƩer of rouƟne, as though they were the appellate authoriƟes subsƟtuƟng their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administraƟve exigencies of the service concerned. 11. In S.L. Abbas's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the jurisdicƟon of the Central AdministraƟve Tribunal is akin to the jurisdicƟon of the High Court under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India in service maƩers. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdicƟon apply equally to the Tribunal created under ArƟcle 323-A of the ConsƟtuƟon. The Central AdministraƟve Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority siƫng in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot subsƟtute 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 Ɵme 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 NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 11 - or the disciplinary authoriƟes to impress upon them the necessity of finalising the departmental proceedings expediƟously or even within a fixed period, it does not mean that aŌer 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 jurisdicƟon of the Tribunal in an applicaƟon under secƟon 19 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal seƫng aside the order of transfer is illegal exercise of the jurisdicƟon 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 administraƟve authoriƟes but their non-adherence will enƟtle an employee to bring such facts to the noƟce of the superior authoriƟes but does not confer any right to seek quashing of the transfer either in an applicaƟon under secƟon 19 of the Act or under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India. Under secƟon 19 of the Act or under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon, transfer order can be interfered with if it is shown to be viƟated by mala fide or in violaƟon of the statutory provisions or having been passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order. Since none of the three condiƟons are saƟsfied in the case set up by respondent No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. " NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22727-2026 (O&M) - 12 - 6. To the same effect is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mool Chand TewaƟa 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 maƩers and has held that the same is not permissible in exercising the jurisdicƟon under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India. In the said judgment, it has been held as under: - "10. In view of the foregoing enunciaƟon 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 allegaƟon are made, (iii) violaƟon of any statutory provision (iv) the allegaƟon 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 seƩled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdicƟon under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India." 17. In view of the above, the present peƟƟon stands Dismissed. 18. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.24 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh