Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Manohar Lal Kaushal vs State Of H.P. And Others on 23 March, 2015
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. : 7889/2014 .
Reserved on: 20.3.2015 Decided on: 23.3.2015 ______________________________________________________ Dr. Manohar Lal Kaushal. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. and others. ...Respondents.
______________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. M.A. Khan, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.
____________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Petitioner was transferred as Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur from Dharampur on 1.4.2013. He superannuated from service on completion of 58 years of age. However, he was given extension of one year as per Government policy.1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:30 :::HCHP 2
Petitioner now has been transferred to Dharampur vide office dated 21.10.2014.
.
2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the transfer of the petitioner is on the basis of political interference. He has placed on recording noting-sheet, which led to the transfer of the petitioner on 21.10.2014. It is evident from the notings r to that the Health Minister has not approved the transfer of the petitioner from Bilaspur to Dharampur. However, Hon'ble Chief Minister has approved the transfer of the petitioner.
3. We are of the considered view that there should not be any political interference in the transfer matters. The incumbent posted at a particular place ordinarily should be permitted to complete his normal tenure. What has been mentioned in the notings is that various complaints have been received against the petitioner, but there is no specific reference about the nature of the complaints. Thus, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be termed as routine transfer. He is at the verge of retirement and should not have been transferred.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:30 :::HCHP 32. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Annexure P-1 dated 21.10.2014, qua the petitioner, is .
quashed and set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
(Justice Sureshwar Thakur), Judge.
23.3.2015 *awasthi * r ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:30 :::HCHP