Allowed

Saurabh Walia v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Sept 2023CWP/5220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an Assistant Technology Manager aggrieved by an office order transferring him from District Mandi to District Solan without completing his normal tenure in a hard and tribal area. Court quashed the transfer relying on the violation of tenure rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned office order dated 05.08.2023 is quashed and set aside to the extent it effects the transfer of the petitioner.

Saurabh Walia Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.5220 of 2023

¶3

Decided on: 5^th September, 2023

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saurbh Walia …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶7

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶12

Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶13

None for respondent No.6.

¶14

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶15

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶16

Heard.

¶17

2. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

¶18

Technology Manager in the office of respondent No.4. He was engaged by respondent No.4 through an Outsource Agency, i.e. respondent No.5. Petitioner was posted at Development Block Nichar, District Kinnaur on 25.06.2019.

¶19

He served there till 23.04.2022. On 26.04.2022, the

¶20

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶21

¶22

petitioner was transferred to the office of Development Block Dhanotu, District Mandi.

¶23

3. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P-2), transferring him from Development Block Dhanotu, District Mandi to Development Block Kunihar, District Solan. The transfer has been assailed on the ground that the petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting.

¶24

4. In the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4, the only objection taken is that the petitioner had got benefit of U.O. note dated 25.03.2022, whereunder, he was shifted from Development Block Nichar, District Kinnaur to Development Block Dhanotu, District Mandi. Private respondent No.6, who was present in person on 22.08.2023, had adopted the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4.

¶25

5. Respondents’ objections cannot be sustained in the given facts. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not complete his normal tenure prescribed for serving in the hard and tribal area. Petitioner, in any case, was required to be posted outside the hard and tribal area of Nichar after his completion of normal tenure at the place.

¶26

¶27

Vide impugned office order dated 05.08.2023, he has been transferred from Development Block Dhanotu without letting him complete his normal tenure. Petitioner had just about completed one year and three months at his present place of posting.

¶28

6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned office order dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside to the extent it effects the transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.6.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶30

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 05, 2023 Judge Mukesh

Saurabh Walia v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Walia 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

Hem Raj and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Dharmi Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Neeta Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vipan Kumar Kapoor Vs Union of India and Others

Mahesh Arora Vs Union of India and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others