Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/1316/2019 on 30 December 2019
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. Civil Writ Petition No.1316 of 2019.
Decided on: 30th December, 2019. Satish Kumar Gupta ……Petitioner. Versus UCO Bank & Another .…Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vijay Arora & Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocates. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
(oral). Affidavit in compliance, in terms of the orders passed on the previous date, stands filed. The same reveals that due and admissible salary for the months of September, October and November, 2019 now stands paid to the petitioner.
2. Since this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Lead District Manager Office, Shimla to Field Inspectorate Mumbai, has been sought to be quashed and set aside, therefore, surviving grievances, if any, qua pay and allowances as pointed out by learned counsel, the petitioner may agitate, in accordance with law, before appropriate forum.
3. Now, if coming to the transfer of the petitioner, he is due for retirement on superannuation in the month of September, 2020. He has, therefore, left only with nine months service to retire. Learned counsel representing the parties are not averse qua making a representation by the petitioner for cancellation of his transfer/adjustment at a suitable place to the competent authority, respondent No.1, herein. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent within a week from today. The said respondent shall consider the same within three weeks thereafter and take a conscious decision qua cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner/adjustment at a suitable place taking into consideration that he has to retire within a period of nine months i.e. in the month of September, 2020. Opportunity of being heard, if required, be given to the petitioner before the decision is taken on his representation. The petitioner, if still feels aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision to be so taken by the first respondent shall be at liberty to resort to any other and further remedy available to him, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Copy Dasti. (Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge.
(Anoop Chitkara) December 30, 2019(ps) Judge.