Pawan Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15491 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.5105 of 2023 Date of Decision: 06.10.2023

.

_______________________________________________________

Pawan Kumar .......Petitioner Versus

State of H.P. and others ... Respondents

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate

General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

                                          Mr. Surinder Saklani,                    Advocate,       for
                                          respondent No.4.

____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Since respondent No.4 has already joined at the place of

petitioner pursuant to transfer order dated 31.07.2023, whereby

petitioner herein, who is Superintendent, came to be transferred from

the office of S.E. 8th Circle HPPWD Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.,

to the office of S.E. 9th Circle, HPPWD Nurpur, District Kangra,

Himachal Pradesh vice respondent No.4, coupled with the fact that

petitioner has also joined at transferred station, there appears to be

no justification at this stage to interfere in the transfer order and as

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

such, learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to

withdraw the present petition with liberty to file representation to the

competent authority, praying therein for his adjustment at some

.

suitable place.

2. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition

is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file

representation before the competent authority, praying therein for his

adjustment at some suitable place, within a period of one week, which

in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of

two weeks, strictly in terms of the transfer policy, wherein admittedly

provision has been made that an employee shall not be transferred

before completion of his/her normal tenure at one station. Since in the

case at hand petitioner has not completed his normal tenure, rather

he has been transferred within one year, competent authority while

considering the representation may also take into consideration

aforesaid factor. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing

the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order

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

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 06,2023 (shankar)