Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/8625/2022 on 29 December 2022
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8625 of 2022. Date of decision: 29.12.2022. Raj Kumar
…..Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawanish K. Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur,
Mr.
Shiv
Pal Manhans,
Additional Advocate
Generals, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Mr. J.S.Guleria, Deputy Advocate Generals and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
(Oral) Notice. Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 to transfer the Petitioner to his parent District i.e. District Una against the vacant position mentioned in supra para. ii) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation Annexure P-5 as per the mandate of Policy of the state.”
3. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that there is 5% quota fixed by the Government for the employees, who have completed five years in one District, for their inter district transfer and, therefore, the petitioner has a right for consideration of his case under the said Policy.
4. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 and take a decision within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that the mere fact that the petitioner has approached this Court will not entitle him to jump over the queue and his case shall be considered in accordance with the seniority.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge (Satyen Vaidya) Judge
29th December, 2022. (krt)