Kushi Ram vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is being heard and disposed of, at this stage. In view of the nature of order being passed,

no reply is required from the respondents.

Heard. Petitioner is working as Beldar in the respondent-Public Works Department. He was appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1987. His

services were regularized in the year 1998 in H.P. PWD Division, Shillai, District Sirmour. He thereafter is stated to have worked in different Sub

Divisions of Shillai Division. During the year 2018, petitioner was transferred to Sub Division Ronhat. In August, 2019, the petitioner was transferred

to Sub Division Kamrau. Vide impugned order dated 16.3.2021, the petitioner has now been transferred from Sub Division Kamrau to Sub Division

Ronhat. Aggrieved against this transfer order, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Class-IV employee, left with around 6 years of service. The petitioner has not

yet completed his normal tenure in Sub Division Kamrau where he was transferred only in August, 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

pointed out following endorsement in the impugned office order to highlight that the implementation of transfer order was dependent upon the

willingness/consent of the petitioner:-

“2. The Executive Engineer HPPWD Division Shillai. He is requested to implement the orders after obtaining willing/consent of the applicant Sh.

Kushi Ram, Beldar.â€​

Learned counsel submitted that despite petitioner’s submitting a written application, expressing his unwillingness to join at Sub Division Ronhat, the

impugned order still stands and has not been withdrawn, though, the petitioner till date is working in Sub Division, Kamrau. The attention has also been

invited to Annexure P-3, dated 19.11.2020, whereby, the respondent-State has imposed ban on transfers, in terms of which, during the ban period,

transfers can be effected only in the eventualities mentioned therein. Learned counsel contends that the present case does not fall under the

eventualities mentioned in para-3 of the instructions contained in Annexure P-3, which is still in force.

Considering all the above aspects, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation highlighting his grievances

against the impugned transfer order to the competent authority/respondent No.2, within a period of three weeks from today. Learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General have no objection in directing the competent authority to decide the representation so

preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period and till the decision of such representation, for deferring of the operation of the impugned

transfer order dated 16.3.2021(Annexure P-1).

Accordingly, petitioner is permitted to file a representation against the transfer order dated 16.3.2021 (Annexure P-1) to competent

authority/respondent No.2, within a period of three weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. In case, such a representation is preferred, then the same

shall be decided by the competent authority/respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks thereafter. Till such time, the operation of impugned order

dated 16.3.2021 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of along with pending application(s) if any.