Between:- R vs Union Of India And Anr. (1993) 1 Scc
2021 Latest Caselaw 4223 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA




                                                       .
                ON THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021





                            BEFORE

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                               &

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA





                CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4881 of 2021

    Between:-       r
    DR. NEERAJ JULKA,
    S/O SH. KAILASH NATH JULKA,

    R/O BADDI, HOUSE NO. 413,
    PHASE-2, HOUSING BOARD,
    BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN,
    AGED 53 YEARS,


    PRESENTLY WORKING AS SAMO.                   ......PETITIONER

    (BY SH. RAJIV JIWAN , SENIOR ADVOCATE
    WITH SH. AJIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE)




    AND





    1.    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
          THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
          HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE.





    2.    ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (AYUSH),
          TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

    3.    DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA
          HIMACHAL PRADESH, 171009.              ......RESPONDENTS

          (SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL
          ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR RESPONDENTS
          NO. 1 TO 3)




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:15 :::CIS
                                        2




               This petition coming on for admission before

    notice this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh




                                                                .

    Chauhan, passed the following:

                           ORDER

Notice. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior

Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of

notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for

grant of the following reliefs:-

" Issue a writ of certiorari or any other direction or order with the prayer to quash the office order dated 02-08-2021 (Annexure P-5)

And/or With the further prayer, that in so far as the

grievance of the petitioner to adjust him at station of his choice, may kindly be considered in

view of the peculiar circumstances and he may be allowed to join at the any place of his choice

against vacant post."

3. A perusal of the petition shows that save and

except for the individual hardship, no other factual and

legal grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this

petition to assail the impugned office order dated

02.08.2021.

4. 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.

5. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of by

permitting the petitioner to make a representation, which if

made, within a period of one week from today, shall be

considered and decided by the respondents within next two

weeks thereafter. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 27th August, 2021.

(krt)