Allowed

Pushap Raj v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Mar 2023CWP/830/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a TGT with 75% locomotive disability, sought transfer to vacant stations vacating his choice. The High Court allowed the request, directing respondents to consider the case for transfer within four weeks in accordance with the Comprehensive Guiding Principles, 2013.

What did the court decide?

Waived notice on the petition. Respondents directed to consider petitioner's case for transfer to one of the four specified stations, pending applications disposed of.

Pushap Raj Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No. 830 of 2023

¶3

Decided on: 1^st March, 2023

¶4

Pushap Raj .......Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P and another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶11

For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi and Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with Mr. I.N. Mehta and Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.Gs.

¶12

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. (Oral)

¶13

Notice. Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, learned Senior

¶14

Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of

¶15

notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of

¶17

following substantive relief:-

¶18

“i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner sympathetically and transfer him to the stations of his choice keeping in view his permanent disability and the

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

stations of his choice where the posts of TGT are lying vacant as under:-

¶22

I. GMS Thach Bahli, District Mandi. II. Govt. Sr. Sec. School Lamb Shapher, District Mandi.

¶23

III. Govt. Sr. Sec. School Bagsaid, District Mandi.

¶24

IV. Govt Sr. Sec. School Luhri, District Kullu.”

¶25

It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is

¶26

suffering from about 75% disability, that too, locomotive in nature. Once that be so, obviously, his case for concession as per Comprehensive Guiding Principles, 2013 for regulating the transfer of State Government Employees is required to be considered under Clause 5.3 thereof, so that the petitioner could be suitably accommodated/adjusted. The petitioner has averred that the following stations are lying vacant, where he could be conveniently posted and transferred as TGT:-

¶27

I. GMS Thach Bahli, District Mandi.

¶28

II. Govt. Sr. Sec. School Lamb Shapher, District Mandi.

¶29

III. Govt. Sr. Sec. School Bagsaid, District Mandi.

¶30

IV. Govt Sr. Sec. School Luhri, District Kullu.

¶31

¶32

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to allow the request made by the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his transfer and posting to any one of four stations as mentioned above, within a period of four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

For compliance, to come up on 29^th March, 2023.

¶34

March 01, 2023 ( Virender Singh ) (naveen) Judge

Pushap Raj v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushap Raj v. State of Hp

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

Varun Sharma Vs Hpsebl and Others

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Mulakh Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Arjun Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Bhagwan Dass Vs Union of India and Others