Disposed

Partap Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Sept 2024CWP/10171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pharmacy Officer who completed tenure at a tribal-area PHC sought a mandamus for consideration of representations for transfer to stations of choice. Court directed him to submit a fresh representation and the Director Health Services to decide it per the Transfer Policy after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: petitioner to submit fresh representation within one week; Director Health Services to examine it under Clauses 12.1, 16.1 and 5.4 of Transfer Policy with personal hearing within th

Partap Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:8607

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.10171 of 2024 Decided on: 13.09.2024

¶4

__________________________________________________________ Partap Chand .....Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶5

.....Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others ……Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶6

Rajan Sharma, Judge [Oral]

¶7

The petitioner has come up before this

¶8

Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶9

“9(a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation submitted/forwarded through proper channel dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), 20.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) & 24.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) when the petitioner has completed his normal tenure in tribal/most difficult area at PHCHINSA Block Gondhla, Distt. Lahaul & Spiti, H.P., in view of the fact that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure and has given 05 stations of his choice, in the interest of law and justice.

¶10

9(b) That the respondents may be directed to transfer the petitioner from PHC-HINSA Block Gondhla, Distt. Lahaul & Spiti, H.P.

¶11

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

¶12

2024:HHC:8607

¶13

¶14

(Tribal/most difficult Area) against any one of the station of his choice as mentioned in the representations, which reads as under:-

¶15

(i) RH Kullu, District Kullu (vacant).

¶16

(ii) Civil Hospital Tegubher, District Kullu (vacant).

¶17

(iii) PHC-Manikaran, Distt. Kullu.

¶18

(iv) PHC-Bhekali, Distt. Kullu.

¶19

(v) Civil Hospital Nagwain, Distt. Kullu.”

¶20

2. With the consent of the parties and in view of

¶21

the nature of order intended to be passed herein, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage.

¶22

3. In background of the prayers so made,

¶23

the case of the petitioner is that he is posted as Pharmacy Officer, on regular basis at PHC Hinsa, District Lahaul & Spiti [H.P.], since 18.05.2021 and

¶24

the petitioner has completed more than the normal

¶25

tenure of two winters and three summers at the said place. It is averred that on completion of normal tenure

¶26

in tribal/difficult/hard/remote areas an employee has

¶27

to be considered for posting at convenient-soft stations, on furnishing, an option for posting at one of

¶28

the five stations in more than one district(s) in terms of

¶29

Clauses 12.1 and 16.1 of the Transfer Policy.

¶30

4. The petitioner is stated to have made

¶31

2024:HHC:8607

¶32

¶33

a representation on 28.05.2024 [Annexure P-1], indicating five stations in two districts. However, Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that only the vacancies in Regional Hospital, Kullu and Civil Hospital, Tegubher, District Kullu [Sr. Nos.1 and 2], are vacant, as on day, which only relate to one district.

¶34

5. Learned State Counsel submits that in case

¶35

the petitioner makes a fresh representation in terms of Clauses 12.1 and 16.1 of the Transfer Policy indicating five stations of choice [inclusive of two stations which are still vacant, as in Para 4 above].

¶36

6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for time to make a fresh representation in continuity of earlier representation dated 28.05.2024 [Annexure P-1], within a week from today.

¶37

7. Taking into account the provisions of Clauses 12.1 and 16.1 of the Transfer Policy; coupled with the fact that the wife of the petitioner is serving as JBT teacher at Kullu, which is a post in a District Cadre and the fact that petitioner has already served

¶38

2024:HHC:8607

¶39

¶40

in tribal/difficult area earlier, therefore, as prayed for, let representation be submitted by the petitioner to Respondent No.2-Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, indicating all aspects within a week from today; with further directions to Respondent No.2Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, to examine the representation, in the light of Clauses 12.1, 16.1 and 5.4 of the Transfer Policy, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, within three weeks thereafter.

¶41

8. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all Questions of facts and law are left open.

¶42

In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶43

(Ranjan Sharma)

¶44

Judge

¶45

September 13, 2024 [Bhardwaj]

Partap Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partap Chand v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Bhardwaj Vs State of Hp

Sohan Lal Vs Rakesh Kumar Sharma

Soma Devi(deleted) sharda devi and Ors. Vs Promod Kumar

General Manager Northern Railway Vs Subhash Chand

Mangat Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nimmo Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others