Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/4261/2020 of DHEERAJ KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS on 31 December 2020
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4261 of 2020 Decided on : 31.12.2020 Dheeraj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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 AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 4261 of 2020
Dheeraj Kumar
Versus
State of H.P. and others
…Petitioner
…Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria and Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy. A.G., for the respondent-State. Chandel, Dy. A.G., for the respondent-State.
Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
(through video conferencing)
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)
Though a challenge is cast to the impugned transfer order, borne in Annexure P-1, and, the afore challenge is grooved in its emanating, without any approval being granted by the higher executive authority, in the State of H.P. However, without considering or evaluating the vigor, of, the afore submission, this Court, in view of the reply furnished, on affidavit, by the respondents No. 1 to 3, to the writ petition, and its making, a, disclosure that the writ petitioner, has completed the prescribed tenure, of, three years, at the station concerned, and, also when the respondent No. 3, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, has completed his prescribed tenure, of, three years, at the station concerned, (i) thereupon, with both the aforestated, not holding any vested or indefeasible right to seek their further continuation, at the station(s) concerned, (ii) rather with the respondent/employer, holding, a, right to transfer them from the station(s) concerned, (iii) thereupon, this Court, does not, deem it fit, to fatter the discretion, of, the respondent concerned, to post them at the station(s), other than the one(s), mentioned in the impugned Annexures.
2. The cumulative effect thereof, is, hence this Court refrains from making any interference with the impugned order, and, reserves the discretion to the authority concerned, to post the afore petitioner, and, respondent No. 3, at those station(s), as it deems fit. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since the infant daughter of the latter, is, suffering from a critical ailment, and, for purveying the fittest medical aid, to her, he is required to be posted at a place, where suitable medical facilities are available, thereupon, the respondents, while making an order, of, transfer order vis-à-vis, both the writ petitioner, and, the respondent No. 3, shall bear in mind the afore facet. Furthermore, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, that the latter is on family way, and also, she has to take care of her aged father-in-law, thereuon the afore facet be also borne in mind, while making the transfer order, upon her.
3. In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the impugned transfer order, is, affirmed. Also, the pending application(s), are also disposed of.
(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge
December 31, 2020 Kalpana
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge