Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bewla vs Union Of India And Anr. (1993) 1 Scc on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4509 of 2021
Between:-
SARITA DEVI,
WIFE OF SH. PUSHAP RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BEWLA, P.O. PADWAHAN,
TEHSIL PADHAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. ......PETITIONER
(BY SH. NEERAJ K. SHARMA
AND SH. HEMANT THAKUR, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(AYURVEDA), TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, H.P. SECRETARIAT,
SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AYUSH,
GOVERNMENT OF H.P.,
SHIMLA-9.
3. SMT. VANDNA GUPTA,
AYURVEDIC PHARMACIST
UNDER TRANSFER FROM
AHC KASOL, DISTRICT KULLU
TO AHC BARYARA, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY
POSTED AT AHC, KASOL,
DISTT. KULLU. ......RESPONDENTS
(SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.
RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
SH. VINOD THAK UR, SH. HEMANSHU MISRA, SH. SHIV PAL
.
MANHANS, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS AND SH.
BHUPINDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2)
This petition coming on for orders this day,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the
following:
r ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed for the
grant of following substantive reliefs:
"i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, the impugned transfer order dated
10.8.2021 (Annexure P-1)may kindly be quashed
and set aside, in the interest of justice and fair play.
ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be
directed to allow the petitioner to perform her
duties at her present place of posting i.e. AHC,
Baryara, District Mandi, H.P. as the petitioner has
not completed her normal tenure."
2 It would be noticed that the entire thrust of the
petitioner seeking quashing of the transfer order is based
on personal hardship(s).
3 It is more than settled that the courts are
extremely slow in directly interfering in the personal
hardship cases. The clear implication of the almost
consistent directions given in the cases is that the
.
transferee could make a representation to the competent
authority. Reference in this regard can conveniently be
made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajendra Roy vs Union Of India and anr. (1993) 1 SCC
148.
4 Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of
with a direction to the respondents-State to treat the instant
petition as representation on behalf of the petitioner; and
consider and decide the same within a period of two weeks.
In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from
taking any coercive action so as to compel the petitioner to
join at the transferred station. It is made clear that this
order shall not be treated as a precedent in future. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Copy 'dasti'.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
13th August, 2021.
(krt)
