Quashed

Keshav Dev v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Aug 2020CWP/2670/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged transfer within one year, claiming entitlement to choose stations per transfer policy after five years in difficult areas. Court quashed transfer and relieving order, directing administration to consider petitioners choice within one week and decide within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Transferred and relieving orders quashed pending ad hoc employees choice stations representation within one week; administration to decide within two weeks.

Keshav Dev Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2670 of 2020. Date of Decision : August 05, 2020.

Keshav Dev

...Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. & Others

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Coram:

¶10

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

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶12

For the petitioner : Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate.

¶13

For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Ms. Rita Goswami, Addl. A.G.

¶14

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

¶15

Anoop Chitkara, Judge . (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, serving at J.S. Division, Bharmour, Sub Division Killar, District Chamba, H.P., has come up before this Court against his transfer within a short span of one year and also on the ground that since he has spent five years in hard/difficult area, therefore, he is entitled to be transferred to the stations of his choice, 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 winters and three summers.

¶17

We have heard Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General assisted

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

by Ms. Rita Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General, based on the pleadings, does not dispute the fact of the petitioner having served around five years in hard/difficult areas.

¶21

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

¶22

Consequently, since the petitioner has been transferred after one year and two months that too without affording him due opportunity to opt for the stations of his choice, we quash and set aside the impugned order of transfer dated 15.7.2020, Annexure P-3, and relieving order dated 18.7.2020, Annexure P-4, subject to the petitioner making representation to the first respondent, mentioning therein five stations of his choice, within one week, in accordance with the transfer policy. On receipt of such representation, the said 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.

¶23

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice.

¶24

(Anoop Chitkara),

¶25

Judge

¶26

August 05, 2020 (ps)

Keshav Dev v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Dev v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Umesh Sood Vs State of Hp and Others

Shahid Khan Vs State of Hp and Others

Ranbir Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

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

Akanksha Gautam Vs State of Hp and Others

Usha Thakur Vs State