Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another

Ranjan Sharma, J

Notice. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal at this stage, in view of the orders, intended to be passed herein.

The petitioner, has filed the writ petition, with the following relief(s):-

(i) “That the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Respondent No.3 being unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and contrary to the transfer policy, may kindly be quashed and the respondents may please be directed to allow the petitioner to work at Forest Beat and Block Bhali, Range Kotla under Forest Division Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.”

It is submitted that the petitioner is a Forest Guard and is presently working in Forest Beat and Block Bhali, Range Kotla, under Forest Division Nurpur since 2023. The petitioner has assailed the office order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) transferring the petitioner from Forest Beat and Block Bhali, Range Kotla, under Forest Division Nurpur to Forest Beat and Block Gangath, Range Indora under Forest Division Nurpur, against vacancy, on the grounds that; (i) the petitioner has been transferred after eight months of stay since 2023 at the present station, which is not in consonance with the Clause 10 of the norms of the transfer Policy; (ii) that the transfer order does not reveal any public interest and administrative exigencies, (iii) the transfer has been effected by resorting to pick and choose method, which is alleged to be not in spirit of principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the background of the facts referred to above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is still working as Forest Guard at Forest Beat and Block Bhali, Range Kotla, under Forest Division Nurpur and has not been relieved even the issuance of orders dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) till day. Learned counsel fairly submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation in view of the above facts and other hardship to the competent authority within a week from today. Prayer being innocuous is not opposed by the learned State counsel.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2- the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests (HOFF), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh within ten days from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to decide the same in accordance with law, after examining the representation as aforesaid and pass appropriate orders thereon within fifteen days in accordance with law thereafter.

Till the decision of the representation, as aforesaid, the operation of the orders dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed qua the petitioner in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite passing of orders the petitioner is still working at the present station i.e. Forest Beat and Block Bhali, Range Kotla, under Forest Division Nurpur.

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