Gulab Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16329 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7675 of 2023 Date of Decision: 13.10.2023

.

_______________________________________________________

Gulab Singh .......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. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.

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

Deputy Advocate Generals.

____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated

30.09.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby petitioner, who is a Lecturer,

has been ordered to be transferred from GDC Paonta Sahib, District

Sirmaur, H.P., to GDC Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., petitioner has

approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside aforesaid

order.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ganesh

Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner

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

has already served in hard area for 20 years, coupled with the fact

that he is 75% disabled, there was no occasion for the Department to

again transfer him to hard area.

.

3. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr.

Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that

petitioner had been working at Paonta Sahib for more than eight

years and by no stretch of imagination, Shillai can be said to be hard

area and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the transfer

order.

4. No doubt, in the case at hand prior to issuance of

impugned transfer order, petitioner had been working at GDC, Paonta

Sahib for the last eight years, but since it is not in dispute that

petitioner has already served in hard area for 20 years, action of the

department cannot be said to be justifiable while ordering his transfer

again to hard area. Though, learned Additional Advocate General

vehemently argued that Shillai is not hard area, but communication

dated 3rd October 2016, issued under the signature of Additional Chief

Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and

circulated to all the Administrative Secretaries, all Heads of

Departments, all Divisional Commissioners and all Deputy

Commissioners, Himachal Pradesh clearly reveals that Shillai and

Sangrah Tehsils of Sirmaur District have been declared to be

hard/difficult area(Annexure P-8).

5. Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has

.

been again transferred to hard area, it is a fit case where court can

interfere while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, but since petitioner has already served in Paonta Sahib for 8

years, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition,

reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the

competent authority within a period of one week, praying therein for

his adjustment at some suitable place, which in turn, shall be decided

by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of

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

provision has been made to adjust an employee, who has already

served in hard area and who is not medically fit. Apart from above,

Clause 5.3 of the policy clearly talks about concession to

handicapped employee. Ordered accordingly. 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. Till the time, representation, if any,

filed by the petitioner within a period of one week, is not decided by

the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at

the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

.

                                                        (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                             Judge





    October 13,2023
       (shankar)





                      r          to