Dismissed

Jagdish Chand Jaswal v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC19 May 2017CWP/604/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging a 2012 transfer order after five years. Noting the petitioner's absence and the elapsed time, the Court held that grounds for quashing the order no longer existed and the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the interim order was vacated and pending applications were dismissed.

Jagdish Chand Jaswal Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 604 of 2012

¶2

Decided on: 19^th May, 2017

¶3

Jagdish Chand Jaswal .......Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the petitioner: None. For the respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G.

¶8

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)

¶9

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer, Annexure P-7, whereby he has been transferred from Sub Circle Lambloo under Development Block Hamipur to the office of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur against a vacant post. In the interim, on 31.01.2012, following orders came to be passed in this writ petition:-

¶10

“Notice. Petitioner shall not be compelled to be relieved in reference to the order dated 13.1.2012 (Annexure P-7). If the petitioner has not been relieved, he be allowed to continue to work as Inspector Co operative Society, Sub Circle Lambloo under Development Block Hamirpur.”

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

No one has turned up to assist this Court as to whether the petitioner stands relieved, pursuant to impugned order, Annexure P-7 from Lambloo and joined his duties at the transferred station i.e. Bilaspur or not. Otherwise also, the challenge to the impugned order was on the grounds inter-alia that he being subjected to frequent transfers after a short span without allowing him to complete the normal tenure at the place(s) of his transfer and posting in violation of the Transfer Policy.

¶14

It is seen that transfer vide impugned order, Annexure P-7 was ordered on 13^th January, 2012. Now, a period over five years has elapsed. Therefore, the grounds on which the impugned order has been sought to be quashed and set aside with the passage of time are now ceases to exist. It is for this reason, the petitioner seems to have lost interest in the writ petition, hence not present.

¶15

The writ petition being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order shall stand vacated. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶16

May 19, 2017 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary) (naveen) Judge

Jagdish Chand Jaswal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chand Jaswal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lal Sharma Vs State of Hp

Arjun Kumar Vs Motti Ram

General Manager Northern Railway Vs Ram Kumar

State Bank of India Vs Sandeep Kapila

Ramesh Zinta Vs Sohan Thakur

Suresh Kumar Dogra Vs State