Inter-Utility Transfers Barred, But Discrimination Struck Down: Punjab & Haryana HC Mandates Uniform Policy for Power Utility Employees
Case Name: Jaswinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 08 April 2026
Citation: CWP-24097-2025 and connected matters
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The High Court held that employees have no vested right to seek inter-utility transfers between UHBVN and DHBVN. While upholding the validity of the policy dated 07.04.2026 prohibiting such transfers, the Court struck down its limited applicability to Group C and D employees as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, directing that the policy must apply uniformly to all employees.
Summary: The present batch of writ petitions arose from a common grievance regarding denial of inter-utility transfers between Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVN) and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVN). The petitioners challenged the rejection of their transfer requests and sought parity with similarly situated employees who had previously been granted such transfers.
Historically, inter-utility transfers had been permitted through executive instructions, leading to inconsistent application and repeated litigation. Earlier judicial directions had required authorities to consider such transfer requests subject to conditions like availability of posts and willingness to forgo seniority. Despite this, the respondent corporations rejected the petitioners’ claims.
During the pendency of the petitions, the State formulated a comprehensive policy dated 07.04.2026 prohibiting inter-utility transfers altogether, including pending applications. The petitioners challenged this policy on the ground that it was discriminatory as it applied only to Group C and D employees while excluding higher categories.
The Court reiterated that transfer is an incident of service and not a vested right, and that judicial review in such matters is limited. It held that inter-utility transfers, involving distinct corporate entities, fall even further outside the scope of judicial interference.
However, upon examining the policy, the Court found that restricting its applicability to only Group C and D employees created an unreasonable classification without any rational nexus to the object of administrative efficiency. Such selective application was held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petitions by upholding the prohibition on inter-utility transfers under the policy dated 07.04.2026. It held that no such transfers shall be permitted except in exceptional circumstances as defined in the policy. At the same time, the Court declared the classification limiting the policy to Group C and D employees as unconstitutional. It directed that the policy must apply uniformly across all categories of employees. The Court further granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings in case the policy is violated by the authorities in future.