Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gorkhu Ram vs State Of H.P. & Others on 21 October, 2019
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 2991 of 2019
Date of decision: 21.10.2019
.
_____________________________________________________
Gorkhu Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_______________________________________________
For the petitioner : Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General
with M/s J.K. Verma, Ritta Goswami,
r Adarsh Sharma, Ashwani Sharma & Nand
Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals
for the respondents.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral)
The services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2006 and thereafter, on 26.12.2016, he was ordered to be transferred from Development Block (Horticulture) Sarol, Office of Deputy Director of Horticulture, Chamba, H.P. to Progeny-cum-
Demonstration Orchard, Kee-Nala (Holi), under the control of Subject Matter Specialist (Horticulture) Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. The petitioner has already completed his normal tenure in hard/tribal area, as per the Guidelines of the Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since as per the Guidelines of the Respondents-State, the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure in the hard/tribal area, he is now due to be 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP -2-transferred to a place of his choice. Despite the fact that the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure in the hard .
area and requested the respondents-State to transfer him to a place of his choice, the respondents-State has not considered his case. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents-State to transfer him from hard/tribal area to a station of his choice.
2. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice for the respondents. He submits that in case the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure in the hard/tribal area, his case will be considered, as per the Guidelines of the Government.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure in the hard/tribal area and is due to be transferred to a place of his choice. When the Guidelines are made by the respondents-State to cover the field, the same are supposed to be acted upon. But in the present case, the respondents-State failed to do so. Under these circumstances, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his transfer from hard/tribal area to a place of his choice, in case he has already completed his normal tenure in the hard/tribal area, in the light of the Guidelines of the Government.
::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP -3-4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-State to pass appropriate order within .
four weeks. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice.
October 21, 2019 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
(hemlata) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP