Allowed

Akanksha Gautam v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Aug 2020CWP/2657/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CWP, the court quashed a transfer order of a Medical Officer from a difficult area as it was passed without giving her an opportunity to choose her station, violating the State's transfer policy. The court granted liberty to make fresh representations.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2020. liberty to make fresh representation within one week.

Akanksha Gautam Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2657 of 2020

¶3

Decided on: 6^th August, 2020

¶4

_____________________ Akanksha Gautam	__________________	_____________________ ....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P.		…Respondent
______________________ Coram	_________________	_____________________

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶7

1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral)

¶9

The petitioner, who is working as a Medical Officer (PMIS Code-27885), in Primary Health Centre Brangal, District Chamba, and is under transfer to Regional Hospital Bilaspur, has come up before this Court seeking quashing of impugned Notification/Officer order, dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure P-1). As per clause 16.1 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, of the transfer policy, applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which provides that the normal tenure of stay of posting in Most Difficult/Difficult/Tribal/ and the Hard areas shall be two winter and three summers.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

2. In view of the nature of the order, we propose to pass, no response is required from the respondents.

¶13

3. Since the petitioner has been transferred from difficult/ hard area, that too without affording her due opportunity to opt for the stations of her choice, therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order of transfer, dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure P-1), qua the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation to the respondent mentioning therein the five stations of her choice, within one week, in accordance with the transfer policy. On receipt of such representation, the respondent shall decide the same, in the light of the transfer policy occupying the field, and pass appropriate orders, within two weeks. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.

¶14

Authenticated copy.

¶15

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice

¶16

(Anoop Chitkara) Judge

¶17

August, 06, 2020

¶18

Pritam

Akanksha Gautam v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akanksha Gautam v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Lal Vs Hp Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Keshav Dev Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Umesh Sood Vs State of Hp and Others

Usha Thakur Vs State

Gulabo Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Mohinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.