Years vs Union Of India & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 5522 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                 ON THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021




                                                          .

                               BEFORE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                                  &

             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 7552 of 2021





     Between:-

      MR. NAVEEN KUMAR NADDA, S/O SH.
      ROSHAN LAL NADDA, AGED ABOUT 34

      YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GUGGAGHRWIN,

      P.O. GEHRWIN, TEHSIL JHADUTTA,
      DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P. PRESENTLY
      WORKING AS JBT AT GPS GANGRAN,
      DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.                               ....PETITIONER


     (BY MR. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE)
      AND
    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
       THROUGH SECRETARY (EDUCATION),




       TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
       SHIMLA-171002, H.P.





    2. THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,
       TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.,
       LALPANI, SHIMLA- 171001, H.P.





    3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION MANDI,
       TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P. DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
                                                 ....RESPONDENTS

     (MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL
     WITH MR. NAND LAL THAKUR AND
     MR. NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL.)




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:22:03 :::CIS
                                       2




             This petition coming on for admission this day,

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the




                                                             .

    following:

                                    ORDER

The instant petition has been filed by the

petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondent to transfer the petitioner from present place of posting to stations of his choice/or a

nearer station of the posting of his wife as per

transfer policy;

b. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondent to decide the pending representation

Annexure P-5 in a time bound manner."

2. Perusal of the petition would go to show that

save and except for individual hardship, no other grounds

have been taken by the petitioner for claiming the

aforesaid reliefs. Moreover, it is settled that as regards

individual hardship, same has to be considered by the

employer. Reference in this regard can conveniently be

made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India & 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."

3. In the given facts and circumstances and without

going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to

dispose of the petition by directing the respondents to

consider the pending representation (Annexure P-5)

sympathetically within a period of three weeks from today.

4. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

For compliance, to come up on 29th December,

2021.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Juddge.

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge.

December 01 , 2021 (PK)