Veena Kumari vs State Of H.P And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1459 HP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                                            CWP No. 769 of 2023




                                                                                        .
                                                        Decided on: 24th February, 2023





           Veena Kumari                                                          .......Petitioner





                                                       Versus


           State of H.P and others                                                ...Respondents



           Coram                    r                to
           The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

           Whether approved for reporting?1
           For the petitioner:                        Mr.   L.N. Sharma    and    Mr.
                                                      Praveen Chauhan, Advocates.


           For the respondents:                       Mr. Rajan Kahol, Addl. A.G with
                                                      Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Addl. A.G for
                                                      respondents No. 1 to 4.




           Satyen Vaidya, Judge. (Oral)

Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr.

Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General

appears and waives service of notice on behalf of

respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved against the transfer order

Annexure P-1, whereby she has been ordered to be

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

transferred from GSSS, Dhundan, District Solan, H.P. to GSSS,

.

Dhayla in the same district.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the petitioner is suffering from depression and is

undergoing treatment from Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. Her

husband is working as a Lecturer (English) and is presently

posted at GSSS (Girls), Bilaspur. He takes care of the

petitioner's health and facilitates her treatment due to the

lesser distance between Bilaspur and Dhundan. GSSS, Dhayla

is a distant station and that is why, the petitioner is unable to

join said station, as she will be deprived of the medical facility.

4. It being a case of individual hardship, as per settled

preposition of law, such cases are to be considered and

decided by the employer. In such view of the matter, the

petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent

No.2 within three days from today and on such representation

being received by respondent No.2, the same will be decided

within a week thereafter.

5. Since, petitioner has prima-facie made out a case

of grave hardship, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of

the case, it is ordered that she will not be forced to join the

.

place of posting till the decision on her representation.

6. It is clarified that this order has been passed in the

peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a

precedent.

7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

February 24, 2023 r to terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                                                       ( Satyen Vaidya )

         (naveen)                                       Vacation Judge