Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/9868/2013 of RAM KISHORE Vs STATE OF HP on 30 December 2013
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 9868 of 2013-G Date of Decision: 30.12.2013 Ram Kishore ………Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma,
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. 9868 of 2013-G Date of Decision: 30.12.2013
Ram Kishore
………Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others
…..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]No.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. AG, Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy.AG and Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral)
Petitioner, who is working as TGT Medical, on contract basis, has completed his normal tenure of posting at Nesang, District Kinnaur, being a tribal area. He has indicated the stations of his choice where he can be posted in terms of the Transfer Policy, framed by the State Government. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has made a representation (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.3, which is still pending before the authority concerned.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Under instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the said respondent to decide petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-2) expeditiously. Learned Advocate General has no objection to the same.
3. No other point is urged. 4. Leaving the question of law open, a direction is issued to respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-2), in accordance with law, by affording due opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of, as also, pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
December 30, 2013(Purohit)
(V.K.Sharma), Judge.