Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shashi Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 December, 2019
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Civil Writ Petition No.3801 of 2019.
Decided on: 30th December, 2019.
Shashi Kumar ......Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & 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. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).
The petitioner is working as Health Educator and presently posted as such in Community Health Centre, Ladbharol, District Mandi, H.P. He has now been ordered to be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:41 :::HCHP 2transferred to Community Health Centre, Sullah, .
District Kangra, H.P., vide impugned order Annexure P-2.
2. The complaint is that the transfer of the petitioner 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 27.11.2019:-
" Notice. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Dasti notice to respondent No.4 for 16.12.2019, on filing process fee within two days. In view of the averments in the writ petition that the petitioner has been transferred consequent upon the U.O/D.O note, the record leading to his transfer be produced on the date fixed.
In the meanwhile, status quo as on today qua the transfer and posting of the petitioner shall be maintained."
3. Consequently, learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the record. The averments in ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:41 :::HCHP 3 the writ petition that the petitioner has been .
transferred on D.O. note find support from the records as it is the office of the Chief Minister who has recommended his transfer from the present place of posting by way of such note.
4. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:41 :::HCHP 4 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.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge.
(Anoop Chitkara) Judge.
December 30, 2019 (ps)
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:41 :::HCHP