Dismissed

Navleet Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Oct 2023CWP/1808/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this consistorial writ petition, the petitioner challenged his transfer order alleging it was based on a D.O. Note from a political entity. The court, relying on a Division Bench judgment regarding transfer policies, held that since the petitioner served for more than five years, no ground for interference existed, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The transfer order was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed along with pending applications.

Navleet Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1808 of 2023 Date of decision : 12.10.2023. Navleet Kumar ...Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge .

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. N. K. Tomar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, DAG, for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶9

Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶10

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral):

¶11

The petitioner has challenged his transfer order on

¶12

the ground that the same has been issued on the basis of a D.O. Note of a political entity.

¶13

Reply has been filed. It has been averred that petitioner has already completed more than five years at one station. That being so, the petitioner cannot have any plausible grievance with respect to his transfer, may on the basis of a D.O. Note.

¶14

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

¶15

-2-

¶16

A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2624 of 2020, titled as, Shabnam vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 18.9.2020 has held as under:-

¶17

“2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It remains undisputed that prior to the present transfer, petitioner had served in the previous station for more than three years i.e. w.e.f. 9.2.1017. The Transfer Policy also provides that a normal tenure at a station would be three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred on a D.O. Note issued by the forth respondent, who is a MLA. Once, the employee has completed her normal tenure, it is none of her concerned that on what basis the transfer order came into effect.”

¶18

In view of the fact that the petitioner is at one station for more than five years, no ground for interference is made out and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19

(Satyen Vaidya) 12^th October, 2023 Judge (kck)

Navleet Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navleet Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetna Kumari Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board and Ors.

Vipan Kumar Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board and Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Tej Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Vinay Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another