Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3172/2019 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
CWP No. 3172 of 2019-H
Date of Decision: December 30, 2019
Radhika Mahant ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. ...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. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. AGs and M/s. J.S. Guleria, Yudhbir Singh Thakur & Raju Ram Rahi, Dy.AGs, for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 ex parte.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner, a Computer Operator, has been transferred from the Office of District Treasury Office, Kullu to the Office of District Treasury Office, Una, of course on the basis of D.O. note. The record produced by the learned Additional Advocate General reveals that even she is also recipient of D.O. note as in the month of July/August, 2019, when she was being transferred from the District Treasury Office, Kullu to Capital Treasury, Shimla vice one Smt. Leela 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11339-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:40:27 :::CIS
Devi, she procured D.O. note No. Secy./CM-FO102/2017- DEP-A-174288, dated 1.10.2019 and managed cancellation of her transfer from Kullu. Although there is no record that on the basis of D.O. note she was transferred vide Smt. Leela Devi aforesaid to the Capital Treasury, Shimla. There is no order of cancellation of her transfer. However, the fact remains that she had also pressed in service D.O. note to seek cancellation of her proposed transfer to Shimla. Such facts have been withheld from the Court. The present is not a case where the intervention of this Court is required. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to make representation to respondent No. 1, which shall be considered sympathetically and taking into consideration the so called adverse family circumstances. Application(s), if pending will also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge. (Anoop Chitkara),
Judge. December 30 , 2019 (PK) 2 High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11339-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:40:27 :::CIS