BHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-50
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
September 04,2020
BHAJAN SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]B VARADHA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. H N KIRTANIA [REFERRED TO]
SHILPI BOSE VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S L ABBAS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GANESH DASS SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM N E TELECOM CIRCLE VS. RAJENDRACH BHATTACHARJEE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. S S KOURAV [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBNAL BAR ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JANARDHAN DEBANATH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. GOBARDHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SIYA RAM [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN VS. DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
SOMESH TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MURALIDHARA MENON [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. KASHMIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following reliefs:
"(a) To set aside and quash the impugned Transfer Order dated 26th August, 2020 (Annexure P-1) at Serial No.3 and 4 qua the petitioner and the private respondent on the grounds that the petitioner is having one year four months for retirement, is yet to complete normal tenure, is having personal family circumstances (aged ailing mother), has been transferred to a place which is more than 85 Kms and that too during ban on transfers (Annexure P-3) and on other grounds as detailed.
(b) To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at the present station till the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2021 or posting of the petitioner may be allowed at some suitable station keeping in view the short date of retirement of the petitioner as per the clause 5.5 of the Transfer Policy."
(2.)The petitioner, who is posted as Kanungo at Changar, Sub Tehsil Panjhera, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan,H.P., has been ordered to be transferred to Domehar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, vide order dated 26.08.2020 which is around 85 kilometres away from the present place of posting.
(3.)The transfer has been challenged mainly on two grounds; firstly that the petitioner has less than two years to retire and secondly the transfer has been effected during ban period i.e. 23rd July 2020.
;
"(a) To set aside and quash the impugned Transfer Order dated 26th August, 2020 (Annexure P-1) at Serial No.3 and 4 qua the petitioner and the private respondent on the grounds that the petitioner is having one year four months for retirement, is yet to complete normal tenure, is having personal family circumstances (aged ailing mother), has been transferred to a place which is more than 85 Kms and that too during ban on transfers (Annexure P-3) and on other grounds as detailed.
(b) To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at the present station till the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2021 or posting of the petitioner may be allowed at some suitable station keeping in view the short date of retirement of the petitioner as per the clause 5.5 of the Transfer Policy."
(2.)The petitioner, who is posted as Kanungo at Changar, Sub Tehsil Panjhera, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan,H.P., has been ordered to be transferred to Domehar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, vide order dated 26.08.2020 which is around 85 kilometres away from the present place of posting.
(3.)The transfer has been challenged mainly on two grounds; firstly that the petitioner has less than two years to retire and secondly the transfer has been effected during ban period i.e. 23rd July 2020.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.