Ghumarwin vs 5 In The Given Facts And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9055 HP

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




                                                          .
                             &





          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
          CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7720 OF 2022





    Between:­
    SATISH KUMAR CHAUHAN, S/O
    SH. MANSA RAM, AGED 49 YEARS,
    R/O   VILLAGE   KASOL,    P.O.
    MORSINGHI,             TEHSIL





    GHUMARWIN,           DISTRICT
    BILASPUR, H.P.
                                                ......PETITIONER
    (BY  MR.       ONKAR      JAIRATH,
    ADVOCATE.)


    AND
    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
    THROUGH      ITS   SECRETARY


    (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF
    HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA­
    171002.
    2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER




    EDUCATION, LALPANI, SHIMLA,
    171001, H.P.





                                         .....RESPONDENTS





    (BY   MR.    ASHOK    SHARMA,
    ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.
    VINOD THAKUR, ADDL. AG, MR. J.S.
    GULERIA, DY. AG AND MR. RAJAT
    CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER, FOR R­1
    AND R­2)



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

Notice. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

.

behalf of the respondents­State.

2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the

following substantive relief:

"That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to transfer the petitioner from

Government Degree College Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh to one of the stations mentioned in para­8 of the petition, without waiting for any substitute."

3 Perusal of the petition would go to reveal that save

and except individual hardship, there is no other factual or legal

ground set out in the petition.

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 & Anr. (1993) 1 SCC 148.

5 In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we

deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the

respondents to consider the instant petition as representation

and decide the same within a period of four weeks from today.

Ordered accordingly.

6 We have no doubt in our mind that the respondents

while deciding the representation of the petitioner, shall take

into consideration the medical condition of the petitioner.

.

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

For compliance, to come up on 02.12.2022.

                                             (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                     Judge




        4th November, 2022
            (raman)
                    r         to                    (Virender Singh)
                                                        Judge