Disposed

Raj Kumar v. Hrtc and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Dec 2023CWP/10117/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order transferring him from Reckong Peo to Nerwa, alleging violation of Transfer Policy clauses regarding soft station consideration after tribal tenure. The court permitted a representation and stayed the transfer order pending its examination.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make representation to examine case for transfer; impugned transfer order stayed with direction to permit petitioner to work in Reckong Peo Unit.

Raj Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 10117 of 2023 Date of Decision : December 12, 2023

¶3

Raj Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. & another ...Respondents.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate.

¶8

For the respondent : Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate.

¶9

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Notice. Mr. Rahul Gathania, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage, in view of the orders, intended to be passed herein.

¶12

The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶13

“(i) That the impugned order of transfer dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

(ii) That in the alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer/adjust the petitioer to his places of choice i.e. RM Rohru or HRTC Office at Shimla.”

¶17

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Driver, on contract basis, and he served in HRTC Unit Reckong Peo, from 3.10.2017 and is continuing as such till the issuance of the Office Order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), whereby, petitioner has been transferred now to HRTC Unit, Nerwa. Now, the grievance of the petitioner, is that, once the petitioner had served for almost six years [more than the normal tenure of two winters and three summers] on, contract basis, in the Tribal Area at Reckong Peo, then, in terms of Clauses 12, 15 and 16 of the Transfer Policy, issued by the State Government, which is also applicable for the employees of the Respondent – Corporation, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for posting at one of the soft station(s)/station of choice but, instead of seeking an option or considering his case for posting at a soft area, the impugned transfer order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), has been issued transferring him from

¶18

¶19

Reckong Peo to Nerwa which is not in spirit of the existing guidelines/norms governing transfers.

¶20

Per contra, Mr. Rahul Gathania, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that Nerwa is not hard area and transfer has been ordered just to fill up a vacancy at Nerwa. He further submits that in case, the representation is made, the matter will be examined in terms of existing policy.

¶21

Be that as it may, even if the transferred station i.e. HRTC Unit, Nerwa is not hard area and the transfer is to fill an existing vacancy at Nerwa, then also the existing norms and principles, governing transfers, as mandated in Clauses 12, 15 and 16 cannot be given a go by, whereby, after having served for minimum tenure of two winters and three summers in the tribal area, an employee is entitled to be considered for posting at one of the five stations of choice, in more than two districts, either by calling for option or otherwise. Admittedly, no such option was ever invited/called for resulting in depriving the petitioner of the right of consideration at one of the stations

¶22

¶23

of choice in terms of Clauses 12 and 16 of the Transfer Policy.

¶24

In the entirety of the facts and circumstances referred to above and as prayed for, by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make representation to respondent No. 1 – Managing Director, H.R.T.C. Shimla, within three days from today; with further direction to the aforesaid respondent that in case, any such representation is made, the respondent No. 1, as aforesaid, shall consider/examine the case of the petitioner for transferring to any of the stations in the soft area, in the light of Clauses 12, 15 and 16 of the existing norms governing transfers, within two weeks from today, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶25

Since, the Office Order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) has been issued dehors the mandate of Clauses 12, 15 and 16, as referred to above, therefore till decision of the representation, the impugned transfer order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) transferring the petitioner from HRTC Unit Reckong Peo to HRTC Unit Nerwa, shall

¶26

¶27

remain stayed and; the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to work in Reckong Peo Unit.

¶28

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge.

¶30

December 12 , 2023 (PK)

Raj Kumar v. Hrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. Hrtc and Another

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

Karam Chand (Deceased through LRs Narender Kumar and Others) Vs Vikram Singh

Lalit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Bhagat Ram Vs Hpsebl

Mohinder Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Gagan Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Ram Prakash Kapil Vs State of Hp and Others