Anil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without going into merits; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within one week, to be decided expeditiously (preferably within two weeks) after affording him a hearing and in light of the Transfer Policy (transfers on medical grounds and adverse family circumstances); petitioner not to be compelled to join the transferred station till the representation is decided; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's transfer vide order dated 03.04.2025, alleged to have been effected on the basis of a DO Note issued by a Minister of the State Government, warrants interference by this Court.

Court's answer

Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure of posting at his present place of posting, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within one week for redressal of his grievance.

Key takeaways

The competent authority shall decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and shall pass appropriate orders taking note of the Transfer Policy, which provides for adjustment of transfers on medical grounds as well as adverse family circumstances.ratio¶9
Until the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within one week is decided by the competent authority, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Transfer — Class-IV employee (physically handicapped) serving seven years in Government ITI, Berthin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, transferred vide order dated 03.04.2025 to Government ITI, Gangath, District Kangra against a vacant post of Peon; petitioner alleged the transfer was effected on the basis of a DO Note issued by a Minister of the State Government. The Court (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral, 09.04.2025) observed that the petitioner having already completed his normal tenure of posting, there appeared to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order; however, without going into the merits and taking note of the petitioner being physically handicapped, the petition was disposed of, reserving liberty to file a representation before the competent authority within one week, to be decided expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard and taking note of the Transfer Policy providing for adjustment of transfers on medical grounds and adverse family circumstances. Till decision of the representation, the petitioner was not to be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

2025:HHC:9976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.5251 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Though, in the case at hand, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that his transfer from present place of posting has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by a Minister of the State Government, but once it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order.

Petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee, has been serving in Government ITI, Berthin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, for the last seven years and now vide impugned transfer order dated 03.04.2025, has been transferred to Government

2

ITI, Gangath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, against vacant the post of Peon. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is a physically handicapped person and Class-IV employee, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of one week for redressal of his grievance as has been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy, which provides for adjustment of transfers on medical grounds as well as adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

April 09, 2025 (sunil)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge