Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1076 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 742 of 2021 Decided on: 12.02.2021

.

    Sanjeev Kumar                            ......petitioner
                             Versus
    State of H.P. and others              ...... respondents

........................................................................................... Coram Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

     For the respondents :            Mr. Hemant Vaid, Mr. Arvind Sharma,
                                      Mr.   Himanshu     Mishra,   Additional

Advocates General, Mr.Raju Ram Rahi &

Mr. Amit Dhumal, Deputy Advocates General.

(through video conferencing)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Vacation Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf

of the respondents/State.

2. No notice is required to be issued to respondent No.3

in view of the order being passed hereinafter.

3. Vide impugned order (Annexure P/1), the petitioner

has been transferred to accommodate respondent No.3. A perusal

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

of the order shows that it has been passed in compliance to

judgment rendered in CWP No.6186/2020.

.

4. In the instant case, as per submissions made in the

petition, the petitioner has been transferred to a hard area. In this

regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has adverse family circumstances because of which, it

will be difficult for him to join at the transferred station/hard area.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his

client would be content in case he is permitted to file a

representation before respondent No.2 seeking his adjustment in

some other area, without disturbing respondent No.3. Prayer being

innocuous is not opposed by the learned Additional Advocate

General.

Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of

by permitting the petitioner to represent before respondent No.2

within a period of one week from today seeking his adjustment

elsewhere and in turn the representation so made by the petitioner

shall be considered and decided on its merit by respondent No.2 in

accordance with applicable transfer policy within two weeks

thereafter. Till such time, petitioner shall not be compelled to join

at the transferred station and he may be permitted to avail leave

of kind due. Pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand

.

disposed of.

                                        Jyotsna Rewal Dua
                                         Vacation Judge





      February 12, 2021 (rohit)




                      r       to