Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3776/2019 of GURMIT SINGH Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 31 December 2019
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3776 of 2019 Decided on: 31.12.2019 Gurmit Singh .......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
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. 3776 of 2019
Decided on: 31.12.2019
Gurmit Singh
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P and others
…...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, JudgeThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.
For the petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. A.Gwith Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl.A.G, Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. A.G andMr. Raju Ram Rahi, Dy. A.G.Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary andpresently posted as such in Gram Panchayat, Galma,Development Block, Balh, District Mandi, H.P. He has now beenordered to be transferred to Gram Panchayat, Nanj,Development Block, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.2.The complaint is that his transfer has been orderedon the basis of a D.O. note. It is keeping in view suchaverments, following order came to be passed in this writpetition on 26.11.2019:- “Notice. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral appears and accepts service of notice on behalf 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
of all the respondents/State. Reply be filed within fourweeks, as prayed.
In view of the averments in the writ petition that thepetitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat,Galma to Gram Panchayat, Nanj, on the basis of a D.O.note, the respondents/State are directed to produce theentire record leading to the transfer of the petitioner videimpugned order of transfer, Annexure P-2, on the nextdate.
List on 12.12.2019. In the meanwhile, status quo,as on today, qua the transfer of the petitioner, shall bemaintained.”
3. Consequently, learned Additional Advocate Generalhas produced the record which reveals that the petitioner hasbeen transferred on D.O. note as it is the office of the ChiefMinister recommended his transfer from the present place ofposting by way of such note. True it is that this Court in SanjayKumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2013(3)Shimla Law Cases 1373 and also Amir Chand vs. State ofHimachal Pradesh 2013(2) Him. L.R. 648 and in its recentjudgment rendered in CWP No.2490 of 2019, titled DalipSingh versus State of H.P. & Othershas held that the ChiefMinister and Ministers/elected representatives may recommendthe transfer of an employee, however, the transfer order hasultimately to be issued by the Administrative Head on applicationof mind and uninfluenced by the recommendations so made bythe elected representative. In the case in hand, the competentauthority, respondent No.2 has not examined the desirability of the transfer of the petitioner in terms of the transfer policy andalso as to whether his transfer would be in the larger publicinterest and rather transferred the petitioner from his presentplace of posting, merely on the basis of recommendations madeby political executive. The impugned order Annexure P-2, assuch, is not legally sustainable. The same is accordingly setaside, leaving it open to the respondents to transfer thepetitioner, if required, in accordance with law and also thetransfer policy.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so alsothe pending application(s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
Judge
December 31, 2019 (naveen)
(Anoop Chitkara) Judge