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 · 206 wordsSatyen Vaidya, J
Except for the case of an individual harassment, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference of this Court in impugned transfer order Annexure P-3.
The spouse of petitioner is also stated to be an employee of the State Government and in such view of the matter, the petitioner seeks the concession under Clause 5.4 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that her brother is suffering 75% permanent disability and in absence of the parents, he is completely dependent upon the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner shall be content in case she is permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority and the said authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a time bound manner.
Prayer being innocuous is not opposed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to submit her representation to respondent No.2 within three days from today and on receipt of such representation, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same strictly in terms of Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, within one week thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.