Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramjan Mohammad vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 21 August, 2019
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 1639 of 2019
Date of decision: 21.08.2019
.
_____________________________________________________
Ramjan Mohammad .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate
r with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General
with M/s J.K. Verma, Ranjan Sharma,
Ritta Goswami, Adarsh Sharma, Ashwani
Sharma and Nand Lal Thakur, Additional
Advocate Generals.
V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice (Oral)
The petitioner who is working as a Pump Operator has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an office order by which he has been directed to work at a different place than where he stands posted.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Cousnel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
3. The main ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the Executive Engineer who passed the impugned order was not the Authority by whom the petitioner was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:24:28 :::HCHP -2-appointed and that the Executive Engineer has no power to order the transfer.
.
4. In view of the limited nature of the attack to the impugned order, we directed the learned Additional Advocate General on 30.07.2019 to take notice and find out whether the Executive Engineer was competent, even to make local adjustments, as sought to be made out in the impugned office order.
5. rIn response, the learned Additional Advocate General produced a copy of certain instructions, which made a reference to 'Supplementary Rule 114'. But upon a perusal of 'the Fundamental Supplementary Rule 114', it was found out that the same related to the payment of Dearness Allowance, whenever transfers for short periods not exceeding 180 days were ordered, forcing journeys to be undertaken from the headquarters to the station of deputation.
6. Therefore, we directed the learned Additional Advocate General to come up with something concrete that authorized the Executive Engineer even to make local adjustments within his division.
7. In response, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted an office order passed by the Superintending Engineer, who is admittedly the Appointing Authority for the post, approving the transfer already ordered by the Executive Engineer.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:24:28 :::HCHP -3-This office order confirms the fact that the Executive Engineer did not have the power to order the transfer .
8. Once it is confirmed that the first Authority who passed the order of transfer did not have the authority to do so, a post facto ratification by a competent Authority may not be permissible. It is a different matter if the competent Authority has taken a call independently. But post facto ratification is not permissible once an order is found to be without jurisdiction.
9. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(V. Ramasubramanian) Chief Justice.
August 21, 2019 (Anoop Chitkara)
(hemlata) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:24:28 :::HCHP