Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Abhay Gupta vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 6228 of 2023
.
Decided on: 10.10.2023
Dr. Abhay Gupta ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr.
Pratush Sharma, Additional
Advocate Generals, with Mr.
Gautam Sood, Ms. Priyanka
Chauhan and Mr. Rahul Thakur,
Deputy Advocate Generals, for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
: Mr. Ashwani Negi, Advocate, for
respondent No. 3.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
Aggrieved against the impugned
notification/transfer order, Annexures P-3 and P-4,
petitioner has approached this Court.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after
completion of his post graduation, he was posted at
.
Regional Hospital, Solan, H.P., vide notification
dated 08.08.2023. He joined at Regional Hospital,
Solan, and within less than one month, he again has
been transferred to Civil Hospital, Paonta-Sahib and
in his place respondent No. 3 has been posted at
Regional Hospital, Solan, who as per
was posted at Civil Hospital, Paonta-Sahib.
r initial orders
and 2. Except for general plea of exigency of service,
nothing specific has been stated as to what weighed
with the official respondents to change the place of
posting of petitioner within short span of time. It has
also been submitted that before joining the post
graduation course, petitioner had remained posted
in District Solan, H.P. itself for three years.
4. Respondent No. 3 has not filed any
separate reply and has relied upon the reply filed on
behalf of official respondents.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the
parties and have also gone through the record of the
.
case carefully.
6. As noticed above, no specific reason has
been provided by the official respondents to transfer
the petitioner within a period of one month from
Regional Hospital, Solan to Civil Hospital, Paonta-
Sahib. Thus, it can be inferred that the action of
official respondents has been to simply accommodate
respondent No. 3. No specific administrative reasons
have been spelt out. There also is nothing on record
to show that the action of the respondents is in
public interest.
7. No doubt, the petitioner is holding Class-I
post and provisions of 'Comprehensive Guiding
Principles-2013- for regulating the transfer of State
Government Employees, ifso-facto do not apply to
him in so far as the tenure of posting is concerned,
still some permanency is required to be given to the
posting of each and every government servant unless
there are compelling administrative reasons. In
absence of such permanency, not only the
productivity will suffer but also the government
.
servant will not be in a position to perform and
discharge duties in best possible manner.
8. In view of above, the petition is allowed.
The impugned notification/transfer order dated
31.08.2023, Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4, qua
9. to
petitioner, are quashed and set aside.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so
also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Satyen Vaidya)
10th October, 2023 Judge
(sushma)
