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
7 paragraphs · 216 wordsRanjan Sharma, J
Heard for some time.
At the very outset, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case she is permitted to make a representation to the competent authority, against the impugned transfer order dated 13th/15th October, 2023, Annexure P-5, transferring her, as Computer Operator from Development Block, Shillai, District Sirmour to Development Block, Rajgarh, District Sirmour.
The prayer being innocuous is not opposed by the learned State counsel.
Without going into the merits of the case, in view of the request so made, this Court permits the petitioner, to make a representation, to respondent No.2 (Director, Rural Development Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla) indicating her grievances, including hardships, within two weeks from today. In case any such representation is made within the aforesaid period, respondent No.2 shall decide the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within two weeks thereafter.
Till the decision of the representation, as aforesaid, the operation of the office order dated 13th/15th October, 2023, Annexure P-5, is stayed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to work as Computer Operator in Development Block Shillai, District Sirmour.
The writ petition, is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.