Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/9296/2011 of RAM JEET Vs STATE on 29 December 2011
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 9296 of 2011-J Date of Decision : December 29, 2011 Ram Jeet s/o late Sh. Piplu Ram R/o Ram Chowk, V.P.O. Ghugar, Tehsil – Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (Revenue), to the Govt. of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 9296 of 2011-J
Date of Decision : December 29, 2011
Ram Jeet s/o late Sh. Piplu Ram R/o Ram Chowk, V.P.O. Ghugar, Tehsil – Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.
Versus
Petitioner
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.
1. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (Revenue), to the Govt. of H.P., H.P. Secretariat, Shimla, H.P.
2. Sh. Bachhitar Singh, Temple Officer, Chamunda Temple, Distt. Kangra, H.P.
3. Sh. S. P. Jaswal, Tehsildar, Tehsil Jhanduta, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P.
Respondents
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.
For the petitioner :Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for the petitioner. petitioner.
For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)
In terms of the impugned order (Annexure P-3) petitioner stands transferred from Jaisinghpur, Kangra to Jhandutta (Bilaspur).
Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Aggrieved thereof he filed the instant petition in which following interim order was passed by the Division Bench of this court on 27.10.2011:- “Notice. Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. AG, accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the petitioner has only less than 2 years to retire from service. He is in the present station only for the last six months. It is submitted that he has no objection in his transfer to Chamunda Temple as per Annexure P-2. But now at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent, the petitioner is transferred in the place of the 3[rd] respondent at Jhandutha. It is further submitted that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner is to take place in December. In the above circumstances, there will be a stay of transfer of the petitioner from Jaisinghpur to Jhandutha. Short reply shall be filed within three weeks. Needless to say that the petitioner and the 3[rd]respondent will work at the respective places, prior to the date of transfer. Post on 21.11.2011 for further orders. Authenticated copy.”
The same is still in operation.
2. It is not in dispute that petitioner is still serving at Jaisinghpur and the private respondent is serving at Jhandutta.
3. Posting/transfer of an employee is the sole prerogative of the employer. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the order of transfer has resulted into acute hardship and inconvenience. He is ready and willing to approach respondent No. 1 for his accommodation at Jaisinghpur or at any other convenient place. It is always open for the petitioner to do so. Petitioner undertakes to do the needful within two weeks from today. Respondent No. 1 shall consider the same in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of two weeks thereafter. Till then the interim arrangement shall continue.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.
December 29 , 2011 (PK)
(Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge.