Veena Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1029 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                            CWP No.703 of 2021
                              Decided on: 9th February, 2021
    ____________________________________________________________




                                                                          .
    Veena Kumari                                    .....Petitioner





                                               Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others         .....Respondents
    _____________________________________________________________
    Coram
    Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge





    1 Whether approved for reporting?
    ______________________________________________________
    For the petitioner:                        Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.
    For the respondents:                       Mr. Hemant Vaid & Mr. Arvind

                                               Sharma,      Additional Advocates

                                               General and Mr. R.R. Rahi, Deputy
                                               Advocate General, for respondents
                                               No.1 to 5-State.
                                               (Through Video Conference)



    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral)

Mr. R.R. Rahi, learned Deputy Advocate General,

appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents

No.1 to 5. In view of the nature of order being passed, no

notice is required to be issued to respondent No.6.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The

petitioner is presently serving as Lecturer (Economics) in

GSSS Jalag, District Kangra. Vide office order dated

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

02.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), she has been transferred to

GSSS Sarimolag, District Kangra. The petitioner has

challenged her transfer on the ground that the transfer has

.

been effected during the ban imposed on transfers. It has

further been pleaded that the petitioner is aged about 57

years and therefore, she should have been allowed to

continue to work at her present place of posting till her

superannuation in accordance with the transfer policy.

3. Transfer during the ban period can be effected in

accordance with Clause 8.5 of the transfer policy with the

prior approval of the competent authority. Learned Deputy

Advocate General submits that the impugned order has been

passed with the prior approval of the competent authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of

Lecturer (School Cadre) held by the petitioner is a Class-II

post. The concession of posting at preferred place available to

the officials, who are likely to retire within two years, under

Clause 5.5 of the transfer policy is only applicable in case of

Class-III and IV officials. Hence, no benefit can be availed by

the petitioner under this clause also. It is not in dispute that

the petitioner is serving at the present place of posting w.e.f.

2013. As such, she has completed much more than her

normal tenure at her present place of posting.

4. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order cannot

be said to be suffering from any infirmity. The writ petition is

.

accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any. Needless to observe that in case the

petitioner has any adverse circumstances, then it is for her to

represent to the employer and for the employer to take a

decision thereupon.

                                                 Jyotsna Rewal Dua

    February 09, 2021                              Vacation Judge

          (Mukesh)