Ravi Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3598 HP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                  CWP No. 4340 of 2021
                                                  Decided on: 05.08.2021




                                                                                   .

    Ravi Kumar                                                              ...Petitioner
                                         Versus
    State of H.P. & Ors.                          ...Respondents





    _____________________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1       No.





    For the Petitioner :                 Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

    For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Vinod
                        Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr.
                        Hemanshu Misra, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr.

                        Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.G.

                         (Through Video Conferencing)
    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for

the grant of following substantive relief:

i) That the impugned transfer order dated 3.8.2021 may

kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue at the present place of posting

in the interest of justice and fair play or in alternative the respondent may kindly be directed to adjust the petitioner

at near by places in his home town district in the interest of justice and fair play.

2. It would be noticed that the only ground on which the

petitioner seeking quashing of transfer order is founded on

individual hardship. However, it is more than settled that the Courts

are extremely slow to interfere directly in personal hardship cases,

the clear implication of the almost consistent directions given in the

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

cases are that the transferee could make a representation to the

competent authority.

.

3. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy vs.

Union of India and another (1993) 1 SCC 148, wherein it was

observed as under:

"7..... The appellant has not made any representation about personal hardship to the department. As such, there was no

occasion for the department to consider such representation. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the appellant will be free to make representation to the concerned department about personal

hardship, if any, being suffered by the appellant in view of the impugned order. It is reasonable expected that if such

representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable."

4. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case,

we deem it proper to permit the petitioner to make a representation

within one week from today, which shall positively be considered by

the respondents sympathetically within a period of three weeks. It

is made clear that this order shall not be treated as precedent in

future.

5. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

so also pending application(s), if any.

For compliance to come up on 02.09.2021.

                                                   (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                            Judge


                                                       (Satyen Vaidya)

              th
                   August, 2021                            Judge
                   (Guleria)