Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1114/2011 of BHOPAL DUTT KANDPAL Vs KHADI and VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION and OTHERS on 29 December 2011
of 2011 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Mr J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the transfer order dated 16.06.2011 by which the petitioner has
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Arguments
WPSS No.1114 of 2011
Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Mr J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the transfer order dated 16.06.2011 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Haldwani to Bassipathana, Punjab.
The ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondents issued a circular on 29[th] October, 1999 in which it is provided that in normal course, supervisors and equivalents should not be transferred from one State to another State. He submitted that in view of this circular the petitioner should not have been transferred to another State as in the transfer order, the respondents had not mentioned the circumstances under which the petitioner has been transferred to another State.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has completed 18 years at one place i.e. at Haldwani and in view of compelling need of technical staff at SBEC, Bassipathana, he has been transferred to that place. He further submitted that petitioner is a technical staff and he has been placed to Bassipathana because for implementing the programmes of Government of India as posting of some technical staff at Bassipathana is necessary. Service of the petitioner is transferable.
The writ petition was heard on 29.08.2011 on which date transfer order was stayed.
During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has already submitted a representation before respondent no.2 and direction may be issued to him to decide representation of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that respondents have no objection in case such direction is issued.
In view of the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30.06.2011 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Since there is stay order operating in the matter, it is directed that till decision is taken on the representation, the stay order shall remain operative.
Petitioner is also directed to serve certified copy of the order on respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks from today.
Arti
(V.K. Bist, J.) 29.12.2011