Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shivala Sood vs State Of H.P. & Another on 24 August, 2020

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Anoop Chitkara

                                1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                           CWP No. 2689 of 2020.
                           Date of Decision : August 24, 2020.




                                                                  .
Shivala Sood                                               ...Petitioner.





                           Versus





State of H.P. & Another                                  ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.





Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner         :        Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents        :        Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr.

                                    Adarsh Sharma & Ms. Rita Goswami,

                                    Addl. A.Gs.

L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from knee problem and he is transferred during the ban period, which is impermissible for the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the transfer is also bad in the eyes of Transfer Policy. Since he has been transferred prematurely, on this count, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the order of transfer.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General supports the transfer order and submits that the present petition may be dismissed.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

4. During the ban period, it is for the Government to transfer or not to transfer a person. They got the administrative powers and it .

is not proper for this Court to interfere whether during the ban period, any employee is to be transferred or not. It is only a guidance for the State and does not give any right on the parties. Secondly, the submission is that he has been transferred prematurely that may attract the provisions of the policy. Be that as it may. We feel it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent, within one week, in accordance with the transfer policy. In case any such representation is made, the respondents shall consider the same, in the light of the transfer policy occupying the field, and pass appropriate orders, within two weeks. Subject to filing of representation within the time-

frame mentioned above, the interim order dated 4.8.2020, is extended till the decision of the representation. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.

Copy Dasti.

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice.

(Anoop Chitkara), Judge August 24, 2020 (ps) ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2020 20:18:41 :::HCHP