Presently Working As Sr.Asstt vs Union Of India And Anr. (1993) 1 Scc ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5455 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
              ON THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                                  BEFORE

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN




                                                               .

                                      &
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA





                  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7434/2021

    BETWEEN:





    LEKH RAM VASHIST
    AGED 58 YEARS
    S/O SHRI JIWA RAM
    R/O VPO BARSAN
    TEHSIL BALH

    DISTRICT MANDI, H.P

    PRESENTLY WORKING AS SR.ASSTT.
    AT HEAD OFFICE, H.P.G.I.C.L.



                                                      ....PETITIONER

    (BY SH. ADARSH K. VASHISTA, ADVOCATE)




    AND





    HIMACHAL PRADESH GENERAL
    INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.





    HIMRUS BUILDING
    HIM LAND, SHIMLA­1
    THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

                                                      ....RESPONDENT

    (BY SH. LALIT K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
    ___________________________________________________________________

                 This petition coming on for admission before notice this

    day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the

    following:




                                              ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:20:52 :::CIS
                                        2




                                  ORDER

.

Notice. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate appears and

waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has

filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:

1. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be

issued for quashing the impugned order, Annexure P­2, dated 24.11.2021 issued by respondent.

2. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly

be issued directing the respondent to allow the

petitioner to work at the present place of posting i.e., H.P.G.I.C.L., Head Office at Shimla, H.P.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed

his normal tenure of service at the given station. A perusal of the

petition would go to show that save and except an individual

hardship, there is no legal and factual grounds set out by the

petitioner in this petition to assail the transfer order.

4. As regards the individual hardship, it is more than

settled that the same is required to be considered by the

Employer. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy vs

Union of India and anr. (1993) 1 SCC 148.

5. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case,

we deem it proper to dispose of the instant petition by directing

the respondent to consider and decide the case of the petitioner

sympathetically taking into consideration the medical grounds of

his wife and daughter within a period of three weeks from today.

.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

6. However, in the given facts and circumstances, it is

made clear that this order is being passed in the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a

precedent in future.

7. For compliance, to come up on 20.12.2021.

Dasti copy.

                                              (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                      Judge




                                                  (Satyen Vaidya)





    27.11.2021                                         Judge
         (mamta)