Surinder Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 17192 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8267 of 2023 Date of Decision: 31.10.2023

.

_______________________________________________________

Surinder 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. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals

and Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate

General, for respondent No.1.

                                          Mr. Prashant Sharma,                     Advocate,       for
                                          respondent No.2.

____________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated

25.10.2023 (Annexure P-2), issued under the signature of Managing

Director, H.P.State Civil Supply Corporation, whereby petitioner, who

is a driver, has been ordered to be transferred from Head Office,

Shimla to Area Office Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., petitioner

has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein

to set aside aforesaid order.

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

2. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondent-

Corporation, Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate states that petitioner

had been working in the Head Office for more than 24 years and as

.

such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the

authorities while passing the impugned order.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner has

been actually working as Driver in the Head Office for more than 24

years and prior to filing of the petition at hand, he had approached this

Court by way of CWP No.1725 of 2023, laying therein challenge to

transfer order dated 31.03.2023, which was allegedly issued on the

basis of U.O. Note. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

3.4.2023 though set-aside the aforesaid transfer order, but reserved

liberty to the respondent to transfer the petitioner in future.

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

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kulbhushan

Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that again

transfer order has been effected on the basis of U.O. Note, which fact

has been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-

Corporation. Be that as it may, having taken note of the fact that

petitioner has already served 24 years in the head office, there

appears to be no justification to interfere in the transfer order,

however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner's daughter is

suffering from epilepsy and she requires constant treatment, this

Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty

.

to the petitioner to file representation to Managing Director, H.P. State

Civil Supply Corporation (respondent No.2), requesting therein for

cancellation of his transfer order or adjustment at nearby station,

which shall be decided by competent authority in a time bound

manner.

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

is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation

to the Managing Director, H.P. State Civil Supply Corporation

(respondent No.2), seeking therein cancellation of his transfer order/

adjustment, within a period of two days, which in turn, shall be

decided by the competent authority within a period of one week,

strictly in terms of transfer policy, wherein admittedly provision has

been made to accommodate an employee on account of illness of

family member. 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 filed by the petitioner is decided by the

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

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

disposed of.

.

                                                     (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                          Judge





    October 31, 2023
       (shankar)





                      r        to