The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Online Transfer Policy, 2023, introduced by the Haryana government for the State Agriculture Marketing Board. The policy was challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The petitioners argued that the policy unfairly favored elderly employees in transfer postings.
Court Supports Age-Based Preference in Transfers
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, while delivering the verdict, stated that the preference given to older employees was justified. He explained that senior employees have more experience, greater family responsibilities, and potential health concerns. The court ruled that such a classification would not harm younger employees, as they too would benefit from the policy when they grow older.
The petitioners, who are Sub-Divisional Engineers (Civil) (SDEs) working with the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, had challenged the policy, which was approved by the Chief Minister on June 15, 2023.
Petitioners’ Arguments Against the Policy
The petitioners argued that the policy’s scoring system was unfair. Under the policy:
- 60 marks are awarded for age, meaning older employees get higher scores, increasing their chances of a transfer of their choice.
- 5 marks are given for couple cases, but only if the spouse works in a government department, board, or corporation under the State or Central Government. Employees whose spouses work in private organizations do not get these marks.
- Employees can stay at a particular location for a maximum of three years, with a limit of six years in a Market Committee and eight years in a Division or Circle Office.
- Negative marking is applied for poor performance: -5 marks for minor penalties and -10 marks for major penalties. The petitioners argued this amounts to double jeopardy, as they are punished twice for the same offense.
Court Dismisses the Petition
After hearing both sides, the High Court ruled that policy matters are best decided by the government and courts should not interfere unless policies are unreasonable or discriminatory.
Rejecting the petitioners’ claims, the Court noted that all employees would eventually grow older and benefit from the policy. The policy was deemed fair and justified.
On the negative marking issue, Justice Bansal clarified that posting at a non-preferred location is not a punishment under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and does not amount to double jeopardy. The Court stated that employers have the right to transfer employees to non-sensitive positions if they have been penalized.
Importance of the Policy
The Court also highlighted that transfers are a part of government service, and employers have full authority to decide employee postings. The Online Transfer Policy aims to increase transparency and prevent favoritism in transfers.
Final Verdict
The Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded that the policy is not arbitrary or unconstitutional. Since it applies to all employees equally, it does not violate Article 14. The petition was dismissed.
Legal Representation
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Sajjan Singh and Vishal Punia, while the Haryana government was represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Shruti Jain Goyal and Senior Advocate B.R. Mahajan, along with Advocate Nikita Goel.
