Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dr. Shikha Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Another on 6 April, 2023

Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                                       CWP No. 1833 of 2023
                                    Decided on: 06.04.2023
    __________________________________________________________




                                                                              .
    Dr. Shikha Sharma                              ...Petitioner





                                Versus

    State of H.P. and another                   ...Respondents
    __________________________________________________________





    Coram

    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Acting Chief Justice.
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge





    1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes

    ______________________________________________________
    For the petitioner       : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma,
                               Advocate.

    For the respondents:                        Mr.       Rakesh     Dhaulta,

                                                Additional Advocate General,
                                                for respondent No.1.

                                                 None for respondent No.2.



    Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

Heard.

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"i) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for the quashment of impugned transfer order dated 27th March, 2023 qua the petitioner wherein her name is figured at Sr. No. 22, issued by respondent No.1 was directed to be transferred from Veterinary Poly Clinic, Bhangrotu, District Mandi to Veterinary Hospital, Bah-Ki-Dhar, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:34:54 :::CIS 2

without considering the fact that she has completed only ten months at present place of posting and is yet to complete her normal tenure of three years, and without considering the fact that husband of the present petitioner is working as Medical Officer in Forensic .

Department, Medical College, Ner Chowk, District Mandi, and her adjustment as Veterinary Officer at Veterinary Polyclinic, Bhangrotu, District Mandi, was made on the basis of couple case and hence the impugned transfer orders are in violation to the couple policy, in the interest of justice.

ii) Further, a writ of mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to allow the present petitioner to work at her present place of posting i.e. Veterinary Polyclinic, Bhangrotu, District Mandi as she only completed 10 months at the present place of posting, in the interest of justice and fair play."

3. Petitioner seeks to quash aforesaid transfer order on the grounds that petitioner has been transferred after 10 months without allowing her to complete the normal tenure of posting. As per petitioner, she was posted at Veterinary Polyclinic, Bhangrotu, District Mandi for the reason that her husband is posted at Government Medical College, Ner Chowk. The transfer has been effected to accommodate only respondent No.2 and there is neither any public interest nor administrative exigency in such transfer.

Petitioner has also pleaded her personal difficulty on ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:34:54 :::CIS 3 the ground that she is having a pregnancy of seven months.

4. Petitioner is holding Class-I post, therefore, .

she cannot avail the benefit of the provisions of "Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013", wherein the normal tenure of posting has been provided for Class-

III and Class-IV employees.

5. Noticeably, the petitioner has been ordered to be posted at Veterinary Hospital, Bah-ki-Dhar, which is stated to be at a distance of only 30 kilometers from the present place of posting of petitioner. It is not the case of petitioner that Veterinary Hospital, Bah-ki-Dhar is not approachable by road or the transport facility is not available to such place.

6. In this view of the matter, petitioner cannot have any possible grievance for her posting at a distance of only 30 kilometers from the place her husband is posted.

::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:34:54 :::CIS 4

7. As regards the pregnancy of petitioner, she can always make grievance to the employer regarding her individual hardship, if any.

.

8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

                r         to                  (Sabina)
                                       Acting Chief Justice

    6th April, 2023                       (Satyen Vaidya)
            (GR)                                Judge








                                         ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:34:54 :::CIS