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
14 paragraphs · 266 wordsVivek Singh Thakur, J
Notice. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice for all the respondents and seeks time to
file reply.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is seeking benefit of the transfer policy whereby a person having less than
two years to retire is to be accommodated at the station of choice and, therefore, petitioner would be content in case he is permitted to make a
representation with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same within a time bound manner.
In view of the order proposed to be passed hereinafter, no reply/instruction is required to be called from the respondents.
As prayed, petitioner is permitted to make a detailed comprehensive representation to respondent No. 2/Engineer-in-Chief, Jal Shakti Vibhag,
Shimla, on or before 20 th February, 2021 and the said representation, if preferred, shall be decided by respondent No. 2 on or before 16 th March,
2021, by giving opportunity of hearing, if desired so, by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
Till the decision of the representation, order dated 8th February, 2021 (Annexure P-1) shall be kept in abeyance.
Parties may produce the downloaded copy of the order passed by the Court before the Authorities concerned if required and the concerned
Authority shall not insist for the certified copy of the order, rather passing of the order can be verified from the web-page of this Court.
Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.