Between:­ vs State Of H.P. And
2022 Latest Caselaw 78 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
              ON THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
                         BEFORE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN




                                                       .
                           &





     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
          CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7844 OF 2021





    Between:­
    RAJKUMAR, S/O SH. HOSHIARA
    RAM, R/O VILLAGE & POST
    OFFICE KOHLARI, TEHSIL &
    DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.





                                             ......PETITIONER

    (BY MR. SANJEEV BHUSHAN,
    SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR.

    RAKESH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)

    AND

    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
    THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY



    (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
    TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.




    2. RAVI KUMAR, S/O NOT KNOWN
    TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY





    POSTED    AT  HPPWD     CIRCLE
    SHAHPUR,    TEHSIL    SHAHPUR,
    DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.





                                     .....RESPONDENTS

    (BY   MR.  ASHOK    SHARMA,
    ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.
    RAJINDER    DOGRA,   SENIOR
    ADDITIONAL         ADVOCATE
    GENERAL, MR. VINOD THAKUR
    AND MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
    ADDITIONAL        ADVOCATES
    GENERAL, FOR R­1.
    MR. K.B. KHAJURIA, ADVOCATE,
    FOR R­2)




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:33:07 :::CIS
                                              2




               This petition coming on for admission this day,
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the
    following:




                                                                     .

                                           ORDER

Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has

filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive

relief:

"That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and impugned order (Annexure P­2) dated 08.12.2021 may very kindly be quashed and set aside, with further direction to the respondents to

allow the petitioner to continue performing his duties at Dalhousie Division, in the interest of law and

justice."

2 Records produced by the respondent concerned go

to reveal that impugned order of transfer has been passed with

the recommendations of unconstitutional authority and

obviously such recommendations cannot be accepted much less

acted upon in view of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP

No. 2862 of 2021 titled Vipender Kalta vs. State of H.P. and

others, decided on 20.07.2021.

3. Accordingly, we find merit in the instant petition

and the same is allowed, impugned order of transfer (Annexure

P­2), dated 0812.2021, is quashed and set aside.

4. However, at this stage, learned counsel for

respondent No. 2 claims that it was only on account of the

averse family circumstances that his client was constrained to

approach for his transfer, and, therefore, liberty be granted to

him to place his difficulties before the employer. The prayer

.

being innocuous, is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is permitted to

make a representation to the employer­respondent and if the

same is preferred within ten days from today, the same shall be

considered sympathetically, taking into consideration the averse

family circumstances of respondent No. 2 and shall be decided

within a period of three weeks' from the receipt of the same.

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed

of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

Judge 4th January, 2022 (raman)