Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/4141/2019 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.
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4141 of 2019
Decided on: 30.12.2019 Chet Ram .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P and 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. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. A.G with Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl. A.G, Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. A.G and Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Dy. A.G for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate for respondent No.4. Dharam Chand Chaudhary,
J. (Oral)
The petitioner is working as Driver and presently posted as such in HP PWD Sub-Division, Dhanotu under Gohar Division, District Mandi, H.P. He has now been ordered to be transferred to Pandoh Division, District Mandi, H.P.
2. The complaint is that his transfer has been ordered on the basis of a D.O. note. It is keeping in view such averments, following order came to be passed in this writ petition on 11.12.2019:- “Notice. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
of respondents No. 1 to 3/State. Issue dasti notice to respondent No.4, returnable on 30.12.2019, on taking steps within two days. The petitioner a Driver, presently working in HPPWD Sub-Division, Dhanotu under Gohar Division has been transferred to Pandoh Division vide order Annexure P-2, on the basis of D.O. Note, particulars whereof fin mention in Para-5 of the petition. Being so, the respondent No.2 to produce the entire record leading to the transfer of the petitioner, on the next date. List on 30.12.2019. In the meanwhile, status quo, as on today, qua the transfer and posting of the petitioner, shall be maintained.”
3. Consequently, learned Additional Advocate General has produced the record which reveals that the petitioner has been transferred on D.O. note as it is the office of the Chief Minister recommended his transfer from the present place of posting by way of such note. True it is that this Court in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2013(3) Shimla Law Cases 1373 and also Amir Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013(2) Him. L.R. 648 and in its recent judgment rendered in CWP No.2490 of 2019, titled Dalip Singh versus State of H.P. & Others has held that the Chief Minister and Ministers/elected representatives may recommend the transfer of an employee, however, the transfer order has ultimately to be issued by the Administrative Head on application of mind and uninfluenced by the recommendations so made by the elected representative. In the case in hand, the competent authority, respondent No.2 has not examined the desirability of the transfer of the petitioner in terms of the transfer policy and also as to whether his transfer would be in the larger public interest and rather transferred the petitioner from his present place of posting, merely on the basis of recommendations made by political executive. The impugned order Annexure P-2, as such, is not legally sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner, if required, in accordance with law and also the transfer policy.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
Judge
December 30, 2019
(Anoop Chitkara) (naveen) Judge