Chandigarh Sees 46% Employee Transfers Reversed Over Two Years

Over the past two years, the Union Territory (UT) administration has carried out around 150 inter-departmental transfers under its established transfer policy. However, a concerning trend has emerged: nearly 70 of these employees, accounting for 46 per cent of the total, have returned to their original positions.

The duration of these transfers varied significantly, ranging from as brief as 11 days to up to a year. The affected departments included key areas like the UT Estate Office, UT Secretariat, engineering, education and health departments.

The main purpose behind these transfers was to address long-standing tenures, with many employees having served in the same position for over three years—some even beyond a decade. This makes the high number of returns a notable issue, raising questions about the policy’s long-term impact and effectiveness.

The employees involved in these transfers held roles such as clerks, accountants, superintendents, junior assistants, senior assistants and stenotypists. Importantly, all positions dealt with substantial public interaction.

A senior UT official clarified that employees approaching retirement within a year can be reposted to their original roles, as permitted by the transfer policy. Other exceptions included transfers back due to medical conditions or to maintain workflow continuity where performance issues arose.

Back in January 2018, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) approved the UT administration’s inter-departmental transfer policy, authorizing the Chandigarh administrator to move employees in Groups A, B, and C. These transfers are allowed as long as they do not negatively impact employees' pay, benefits, seniority, or promotional opportunities.

In 2022, a notable series of transfers took place at the UT Estate Office as a disciplinary measure. The goal was to foster a corruption-free environment and ensure timely case resolution. Following performance reviews, some officials were transferred, while others faced suspension. The then Estate Officer, Vinay Pratap Singh, emphasised that strict oversight would be maintained to prevent corruption and unjustified public harassment, particularly in positions involving direct public engagement.