Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suman Kumari vs State Of H.P. And Another on 29 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.10733 of 2023
Decided on: 29th December, 2023
.
___________________________________________________________
Suman Kumari ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another ......Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
rt
For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder
Advocate.
Prakash Sharma,
For the respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ
petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the
orders intended to be passed herein.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
following prayer:-
"That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued,
directing the respondents to transfer the
petitioner within a time bound period from the
.
present place of posting to Government I.T.I.
Chintpurni at Nehrian, District Una, H.P.,
where the post of Instructor, Dress Making
is going to fall vacant due to retirement of
Smt. Jeevan Kumari on 31.12.2023, keeping in
of
view the adverse family circumstances of the
petitioner as well as provisions of Clause 5.4,
5.5 and 10 of the transfer policy framed by the
rt State Government."
4. The petitioner is an Instructor [Dress Making] in
Industrial Training Institute, Gangath, District Kangra, H.P.
She has completed the normal tenure at the present station.
5. The only grievance of the petitioner is that she has
made a representation on 08.11.2023 [Annexure P-1], seeking
consideration of her representation, in terms of Clauses 5.4
and 5.5 of the Transfer Policy in view of the factum of a
couple case and approaching retirement. The petitioner, in
her representation, has pointed out various hardships also.
6. In normal parlance, this Court would not have
interfered in the matter, but once the petitioner being an
employee of the State Government, has made a
representation to the Competent Authority/Respondent No.2-
Director, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial
.
Training, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. [Annexure P-1],
then the respondents are bound to consider the grievances,
in terms of the Transfer Policy. This right of consideration
accrues to the petitioner, in terms of the mandate in case of
of
Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others versus State of Bihar and
others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 and the mandate of law
rt
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
State of U.P. and others versus Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11
SCC 402.
7. In these circumstances, this Court directs
Respondent No.2-Director, Technical Education, Vocational
and Industrial Training, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.,
to consider/decide the representation dated 08.11.2023
[Annexure P-1] and pass appropriate orders, within three
weeks from today.
8. Needless to say that, this Court has not
adverted to the merits of the matter and all questions of facts
and law are left open.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well
as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of, accordingly.
.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
December 29, 2023
(Bhardwaj)
of
rt
