Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tani Ram vs Coram on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 1098 of 2021
Date of Decision 4th March, 2021
________________________________________________________
Tani Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & others
Coram
r to ....Respondents
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1
______________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy
Advocate General for respondents
No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
__________________________________________________________________
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Present petition has been filed assailing the
impugned transfer order dated 17th February, 2021 whereby
petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School
Bhadhela Education Block Salooni, District Chamba to
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Government Primary School, Kalounse Education Block Gehra
against vacant post in relaxation of ban on transfers.
.
2 Impugned transfer has been assailed on the ground
that present place of posting i.e. GPS Bhadela is situated in hard
area and is at a distance of 38 Km. by road and 7 Km on foot
from native village of petitioner i.e. Shukrah. It is stated that on
foot, the approach to present place of posting is an uphill
journey, whereas, the place to which the petitioner has been
transferred is also a hard area in tribal Tehsil at a distance of
more than 100 Km and it is submitted that as per Transfer Policy,
the person posted in the hard area has to be given posting at a
station of his choice, but, instead thereof, petitioner has been
again transferred to a hard area that too at a distance of 100 Km
from his native place.
3 Transfer has also been assailed on the ground that it
has not been ordered on account of administrative exigency, but,
on the basis of DO Note of respondent No. 5, who is the
President, Marketing Committee Chamba and therefore, it is
contended that impugned transfer is against the mandate of this
High Court as propounded in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of HP
reported in 2013(3) SLC 1373, CWP No. 5351 of 2012 titled Amir
Singh vs. State of HP and others and CWP No. 1551 of 2017 titled
as Prem Thakur vs. State.
.
4 Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on
record the instructions wherein it is stated that petitioner had
been serving at present place of posting since 26 th June, 2004 i.e.
more than fourteen years. In response thereto, learned counsel
for petitioner submits that petitioner earlier was serving as PTA
teacher and his services have been regularized recently on 18 th
August, 2020. He further submits that in any case, even if
previous service is counted, then also, petitioner should have
been given posting at a station of his choice for serving in hard
area for a considerable long time and further that petitioner
would be contended in case respondent No. 2 is directed to
consider the case of petitioner for his posting at a place of his
choice as mentioned in para 3 of petition.
5 It is also submitted by learned Deputy Advocate
General that if it is considered that the petitioner has served in
hard area, even then he cannot claim the posting at a station of
his choice, as he is resident of the same area. Learned counsel
for petitioner has contended that in Transfer Policy there exists
no such differentiation between the persons residents of hard
area and non-residents of hard area and any person, who has
served or has been serving in hard area, is entitled for benefit of
Transfer Policy including posting at station of choice.
.
6 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions made on behalf of petitioner,petitioner is
permitted to make a fresh representation before respondent No.2
on or before 10th March, 2021 and in case of receipt of such
representation, respondent No.2 Director Elementary Education
is directed to consider the case of petitioner in the light of
Transfer Policy and decide the said representation by passing a
speaking and reasoned order on or before 25 th March, 2021,
addressing grievances/issues of petitioner, after giving personal
hearing to him, if desired so,
7 Till the decision of representation, the
implementation of impugned transfer order shall be kept in
abeyance. It is clarified that in case no representation is filed on
or before 10th March, 2021, interim protection granted to the
petitioner shall stand vacated.
8 Petition stands disposed of, so also pending
application(s), if any.
9 Petitioner may produce the downloaded copy of the
order passed by the Court before the Authorities concerned if
required and the concerned Authority shall not insist for the
certified copy of order, rather passing of order can be verified
from the web-page of this Court.
.
March 04, 2021 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
r to
