Chandigarh, April 11 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has barred inter-utility transfers of employees between Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (DHBVN) - the two power utilities of Haryana. The high court bench of justice HS Brar quashed Section 2 of the April 7 policy, holding it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, further adding that it creates an unreasonable classification between employees that bears no reasonable nexus to the objective of the policy. "The policy shall apply uniformly to all employees of UHBVN and DHBVN and, not exclusively to employees falling under the ambit of group C and D," it added. "If UHBVN or DHBVN are found entertaining transfer requests by any employee, irrespective of their group or category, the petitioners shall retain the liberty to initiate contempt proceedings against erring Nigam under Article 215 of the Constitution," the bench added. As per the judgment, only exception carved out for allowing inter-utility transfers is during national emergencies or force majeure: transfers may be allowed temporarily (not exceeding 6 months) in cases of natural disasters, pandemics or other emergencies requiring cross-utility support, upon recommendation by the state disaster management authority and approval by the state of Haryana. The decision came during hearing of a batch of petitions from employees whose transfer applications were not entertained. They had also levelled allegations regarding pick and choose. They had further alleged that the convenience of higher-ranking officers had been prioritised while remaining unconcerned with the plight of employees of Group C and D as the policy bars inter-department transfers only for these two categories. It underlined that the state being a model employer, held up to higher standards and therefore, bears an additional responsibility to ensure that its actions are not perceived as arbitrary or violative of the constitutional philosophy. The court further added that transfer, etc., is an internal management and policy decision and the scope of judicial review in this respect is fairly limited. "Substituting the decision of the relevant authority with its own when the former is better placed to assess the requirements of the department would be manifestly unjust," it added. The court dismissed the petitions from employees, adding that while the UHBVN and the DHBVN perform similar functions, they are in fact distinct entities with separate boards of directors managing their respective affairs. Therefore, the petitioners have no vested right of inter-utility transfer and thus this court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction in the case in hand, it added. The court noted that Section 2 of the policy limits its application to group C and D employees and the benefit of transfer has been kept open to higher ranking officers (group A and B) in the April 7 policy. "Prima facie, respondent (UHBVN) has created two classes within the same set of employees. However, it is unclear what purpose is served by this status-based discrimination, especially considering that the objective of the policy has essentially been to promote administrative efficiency and accountability," it said. "Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that denying the opportunity of inter-utility transfer, in such strict terms, only to the group C and D is arbitrary and unreasonable as it bears no rational nexus to the objective of the policy," it said while ordering that the policy would apply to all set of employees in the two entities....