Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3869 HP
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3044 OF 2021
Between:-
MISS KAVITA RANA
DAUGHTER OF LATE SH. NORBU RAM,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
CHANGUT, POST OFFICE KARPET,
SUB-TEHSIL UDAIPUR, DISTRICT
LAHAUL AND SPITI PRESENTLY
WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT
IN THE OFFICE OF H.P.P.W.D (CV),
DIVISION, UDAIPUR UNDER TRANSFER
TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER(MZ),
HPPWD, MANDI VICE PRIVATE RESPONDENT
NO.5 WITHOUT TTA/JT.
....PETITIONER
(BY SH. ANUBHAV CHOPRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PW)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
HIMACHAL PRADESH, PWD,
SHIMLA -171002.
3. CHIEF ENGINEER,
MANDI ZONE, HPPWD,
MANDI, H.P.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C.V),
DIVISION, UDAIPUR,
LAHAUL & SPITI,
5. SH. VIDYA SAGAR,
PARENTAGE NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER PRESENTLY
WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT
IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER (MZ),
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:16 :::CIS
2
HPPWD, MANDI, H.P.
..RESPONDENTS
(MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. R.S. DOGRA,
.
SR. ADDL. A.G, MR. HEMANSHU MISRA, MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS AND MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 TO R-4)
____________________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:
ORDER
Heard. Perusal of the writ petition would go to show that save and
accept for individual hardship, we do not find any ground to interfere in the
order of transfer. As regards the individual hardship, more particularly, that
her mother is suffering from geriatric ailment, the same has to be considered
by the employer.
2. Reference in this regard can be conveniently 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 reasonably expected that if such representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable."
3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the instant
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, with a liberty to the
petitioner to make a representation within one week from today, disclosing
the fact that the petitioner is a spinster and her mother is a chronic patient of
diabetes Mellitus Type-II, which is a geriatric ailment. The same shall be
.
considered by the respondents sympathetically within two weeks thereafter
from the receipt of the representation.
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending
application(s), if any.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
Judge
August 12, 2021
(naveen) r to ( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!