Isha Devi vs State Of H. P. & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 180 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 93 of 2021 Decided on : 05.01.2021

.

    Isha Devi                                                                            .....Petitioner





                                          Versus

    State of H. P. & Ors.                                                         ....Respondents

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Addl.

A.Gs., Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Ms. Seema

Sharma, and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Dy. A.Gs.

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge(oral)

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive reliefs:

"i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her transfer to her native place, keeping in view the adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, vide memorandum/transfer policy dated 10.07.2013.

ii) That the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 23.11.2020, Annexure P-2 within a time bound manner.

2. We really wonder how the petition is maintainable.

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

3. It is more than settled that a writ of mandamus does not

lie to create or establish a legal right but to enforce the legal right

.

that is already established. Writ being equitable in nature, its

issuance is governed by equitable principle. The writ cannot be

granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of

the applicant or an existing duty of the respondent.

4. Apart from other, an employee has no vested right to

create a particular post to serve at a particular place for a particular

time. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine

as to at what place and where the services of a particular employee

are required.

5. What is more important is that just prior to filing of the

instant petition, the petitioner preferred a representation to the

respondents with a similar prayer and that without waiting for its

outcome has filed the instant writ petition. It is on the basis of such

representation, that the petitioner has sought direction to the

respondent to consider and decide the same within time bound

manner. Even though, the prayer on the face of it appears to be now

innocuous, but when considered in depth, it would be noticed that

the petitioner wants this Court to act as a Post-Office, which is not

permissible in law. This practice of filing the representation without

waiting for its outcome for a reasonable time deserves to be

deprecated.

6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed, so also the

pending application(s), if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

.

                                                (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                        Judge





                                                    (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
    05.01.2021                                           Judge
     (sanjeev)




                       r           to