_____________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3721 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 2914 of 2021

.

Date of decision: 06.08.2021

_____________________________________________ Partap Chand .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others .....Respondents _____________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Acting Chief Justice The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ______________________________________________

For the petitioner : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel,

Advocate.

    For the respondents                :        Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
                                                General     with    Mr.   Ranjan


                                                Sharma,      Mr. Vikas Rathore,
                                                Additional Advocates    General
                                                and Ms. Seema Sharma,Deputy




                                                Advocate    General,          for
                                                respondents No. 1 & 2.





                                                Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for
                                                respondent No. 3.





                                                (Through Video Conferencing)

Ravi Malimath, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the

transfer order dated 06.05.2021 (Annexure P-1), he was

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

transferred from GSSS Barwala to GSSS Ichhi. On the same day,

later on, another transfer order was issued transferring him from

.

GSSS Barwala to GSSS Gumma. Questioning the same, the

instant petition is filed.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the second

transfer order is erroneous since the same could not have been

issued. That there is manipulation of the record by the

respondents. Secondly, the petitioner has undergone a serious

surgery in the year 2016 and he needs constant care. Thirdly,

that his mother is aged about 80 years, who is suffering from old

age ailments. Therefore, the transfer order (Annexure P-2) is

inappropriate.

3. The aforesaid contention is disputed by Mr. Vikas

Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on

behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. He contends that just because

of the second transfer order is issued, that by itself, does not

violate any right of the petitioner. That the questions of surgery

and the old age problems of the mother of the petitioner are

constant problems, that are faced by everyone. Hence, no

interference is called for.

4. Heard learned counsels.

5. In terms of Annexure P-1, the petitioner has been

transferred from Barwala to Ichhi. The said transfer has been

.

effected on mutual consent. On the same day, yet another

notification has been issued transferring him from Barwala to

Gumma. So far as the contention regarding the serious surgery

of the petitioner is concerned, we do not think that the same

should be taken seriously. He was operated for piles, that too, in

the year 2016. The operation took place even before he was

transferred to Barwala. Therefore, the said ground cannot be

considered as a genuine ground.

6. So far as the ailment of the mother of the petitioner

is concerned, her age is about 80 years. That by itself cannot

constitute a ground for the retention of the petitioner at the

place of his transfer.

7. So far as the other contention of the petitioner is

concerned that the second transfer order is erroneous, we do not

think so. The second transfer order has been issued on the

same day. Therefore, no legal right has really accrued to the

petitioner to plead that injustice has occurred to him. Hence, the

said ground is not available to the petitioner. Even otherwise, he

belongs to the State Cadre and is liable to be transferred

anywhere in the State. Even, according to the petitioner, he has

health problem and his mother is aged. He has been transferred

.

to Shimla. It is needless to state that the medical facilities and

care of old aged parents will be done much better in Shimla than

in any other place. Therefore, the posting at Shimla is a

blessing to him and it cannot be said that he is aggrieved by it.

8. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any

ground for interference.

r Hence, the petition is dismissed. The

pending miscellenous applications are also disposed off.

                                                 ( Ravi Malimath )




                                                Acting Chief Justice






    August 6, 2021                           ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
    (hemlata)                                      Judge