Arun Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of following reliefs:-

(i) To quash and set-aside impugned orders dated 30.06.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure P-2 qua the petitioner and further the respondent No. 2 be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as a Deputy Ranger, Ramshehar Unit of DPO, ID, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh till his retirement.

(ii) Direct the respondent No. 2 to produce the record pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 alongwith copy of DO Note (supra) for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

The only ground on which the transfer has been assailed by the petitioner is that the same has not been passed in administrative exigency or public interest but on the basis of the D.O. note, which is not sustainable in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., Latest HLJ 2013 HP 251.

Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner by filing reply, wherein, it has been specifically stated that once the petitioner himself recipient / beneficial of the D.O. note in earlier point of time, now he is not entitled to raise issue of D.O. note, as per the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4063 of 2019, titled as Smt. Anita Rana & Anr. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.. on 31.12.2019.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

This court in Anita Rana's case supra has specifically considered the proposition as involved in this case, that a recipient/beneficial of a D.O. note at an earlier occasion, which led to the transfer, cannot approach this Court for ventilating the grievances that he/she has been transferred on the basis of the D.O. note.

It would be apposite to refer to the relevant observations made by a Coordinate Bench in order dated 31.12.2019, which reads as under:-

"We have heard this matter for some time and also perused the record produced by the office of respondent No. 2. It is seen from the record that on the D.O. Note, the transfer of petitioner No. 1 has been proposed to be cancelled. Meaning thereby that she is also recipient of D.O. Note, hence not justified in ventilating the grievances that she has been transferred on the basis of D.O. note. Therefore, the writ petition qua her deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to her to make a representation either for cancellation of her transfer or adjustment at some suitable place, if so advised."

Since the petitioner himself on an earlier occasion was transferred on the basis of the D.O. note, therefore, this petition at his instance complaining of transfer on D.O. note is not at all maintainable.

Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.