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
15 paragraphs · 255 wordsL. Narayana Swamy, CJ
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as Assistant Horticulture Development Officer has challenged the transfer order dated
27.07.2019, (Annexure P-2), hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the impugned order’, whereby he has been transferred from Kangra to Chamba.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is on the verge of retirement, he should have been transferred to the place of his
choice, as per the Transfer Policy of the State Government. He further submits that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the Transfer Policy of
the State Government.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that since the petitioner has joined at the transferred station, the impugned transfer
order has become infructuous.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.
From the record, we find that the petitioner has joined at the transferred station and the transfer of the petitioner has been effected in the year
2019. Therefore, at this juncture, we do not find it appropriate to interfere in this matter. However, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ
petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation alongwith supporting documents before the respondents within one week from today
and the respondents are directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter. Till then, the interim order dated
16.10.2019 shall remain in force.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.