AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 202 wordsSanjay Karol, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
In effect, Petitioner does not assail the impugned order of transfer dated 25.6.2011 (Annexure PC). Private Respondent has also joined her place of posting at Solan. Petitioner shall now join at his place of posting at Shimla within seven days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
It is the Petitioner''s case that he is suffering from physical disability and frequent transfers has also resulted into hardship. Mr. J.K.Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, under instructions from Shri Devi Ram, Junior Engineer, office of Engineer-in-Chief, Shimla, submits that there is No. other vacancy available in Shimla. As such as orally prayed for by the Petitioner, he cannot be accommodated anywhere else. However, Petitioner submits that one vacancy is likely to arise in Division No. II, Shimla in near future.
Petition is hence disposed of with the direction that as and when such vacancy arises in future, Respondent-State shall consider the Petitioner''s case on merits and take a decision in accordance with law, of conveniently accommodating him by taking into account his grievances.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of so also the pending application, if any.