Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 30.08.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 30 August, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:7696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4059 of 2024
Decided on: 30.08.2024
Parkash Chand ... Petitioner
Versus
.
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : Mr. Dinesh K. Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this Writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
the following reliefs:-
"i) That transfer order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P/13)
& order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P/21) may kindly
be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice & fair
play.
ii) That the respondents may be directed to not to transfer
the petitioner as the son of the petitioner is suffering from
Sehizophrenia/Obsessive disorder disease which is a
mental disorder and is non-curable and under this
disorder person is not able to think, feel and behave. The
petitioner as a father is the only care giver to his
disordered son as no one in family is there to look after
him.
iii) That the petitioner may not be deprived against
transfer policy clause as well as, can perform as care-
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:7696
giver to his mentally disordered son who is dependent on
petitioner in absence of his mother and sister."
2. Though, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding
.
a State cadre post, but fact of the matter remains that the petitioner
is on the verge of superannuation and is to retire on 31.05.2025. The
case of the petitioner primarily is that his young son who is 30 years
old is suffering from Sehizophrenia/Obsessive disorder and not only
the disease is incurable, it is the petitioner only who is looking after
his son.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the
Court that the wife of the petitioner is also a Government servant.
She is serving in the Education Department and posted in District
Chamba and the post which she is holding is a district cadre post.
4. It is in these peculiar circumstances that the prayer is
being made that the transfer order of the petitioner from District
Kangra to District Mandi be quashed and set aside and the
respondents be directed to adjust the petitioner at Kangra itself.
5. Though, in the peculiar facts of the case opportunities
were granted to the State to have instructions, however, learned
Additional Advocate General has not been able to gain instructions.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General has otherwise
apprised the Court that the petitioner has been transferred on
2024:HHC:7696
complaints and coupled with the fact that he has already completed
his normal tenure at Kangra, the present petition deserves
.
dismissal.
7. I have learned counsel for the parties and I have also
carefully gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case.
8. The petitioner happens to be a Class-I Officer, who has
already completed his normal tenure at Kangra. However, fact of the
matter remains that the petitioner has a special son to look after
who as per the pleadings made in the Writ petition is suffering from
mental disorder. In these peculiar circumstances, as it has not been
disputed by the State that the wife of the petitioner is serving
against a district cadre post in District Chamba, this Court is of the
considered view that the issue relating to the adjustment of the
petitioner at Kangra ought to have been given a sympathetic
consideration rather than a myopic one.
9. As far as the issue of complaints against the petitioner
are concerned, it is settled law that transfer is not to be used as a
tool to punish an officer or official and in case there are allegations
against an officer or official, then better course is to hold a
departmental inquiry and take such complaints or allegations to
their logical conclusions. However, in the garb of complaints or
allegations, the incumbent cannot be harassed by transferring him.
2024:HHC:7696
10. Coming back to the facts of this case, as this Court is
satisfied that at the fag end of his service career the petitioner has a
.
right of sympathetic consideration of being adjusted at a station of
his choice, more so in view of the health condition of his son, this
petition is disposed of by quashing Annexure P-13 dated 04.09.2024
and Annexure P-21 dated 04.05.2024 and directing the respondents
to adjust the petitioner at any station at Kangra or nearby station on
the post of Deputy Director, Education. What work has to be
assigned to the petitioner is left to the discretion of the department
concerned, but all that this Court wants is that the petitioner may
be adjusted in or around Kangra, so that he can look after his ailing
son.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
August 30, 2024
(Rishi)
