Babu Ram vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2994 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.3587 of 2021 Decided on:30.06.2021

.

     Babu Ram                                                                    ..........Petitioner





                                                Versus

The State of Himachal Pradesh and another ........Respondents

__________________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner r : Mr. Daleep Chand, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. R.S. Dogra, Senior Additional

Advocate General & Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State.

(Through Video Conferencing) ___________________________________________________________ Ravi Malimath, Judge (Oral).

The plea of the petitioner is for a order to quash the

impugned transfer order dated 19.06.2021, in terms whereof, he has

been transferred from Gram Panchayat Millah, Development Block

Shillai to Gram Panchayat Dippor, Development Block Rajgarh, District

Sirmour.

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

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order

of transfer is erroneous, firstly, on the ground that nobody has been

transferred in place of the petitioner and secondly that the place where

.

he has to report for duty, is 160 kilometers away.

3. So far as the placement of a person is concerned, prima

facie, there is no material to indicate that anybody has been posted in

place of the petitioner. However, it is the discretion of the State to

either post a person or to keep it vacant or to deal with it in a manner

known to law. It is not for this Court to decide the present issue.

Secondly, that the petitioner has been transferred to a place 160

kilometers away, cannot constitute a ground for interfering in the order

of transfer. The petitioner is entitled to be transferred within the

District. Therefore, the distance cannot constitute a ground which can

invalidate the order of transfer. Hence, on both these grounds, we do

not find any reason to accept the contentions of the petitioner. Hence,

the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The pending

miscellaneous applications are disposed off.

( Ravi Malimath ) Judge.

                                                         ( Satyen Vaidya )
         June 30, 2021                                        Judge
         (Yashwant/tarun)