Nand Lal vs State Of H.P. & Another

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor, Physical Education, has come up before this Court against the dismissal of his representation by Principal Secretary (Education), vide order dated 7.8.2019, wherein the transfer of the petitioner was affirmed.

The respondents have filed their respective responses, wherein it is claimed that the order of transfer was without violating any of the provisions of transfer policy.

Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate submits that during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the petitioner is now entitled to claim his transfer in view of clause 5.5 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, of the transfer policy applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which provides that an employee, who has less than two years to retire, should be posted in the convenient places/stations. He further submits that a post has fallen vacant at Nadaun and the petitioner may be adjusted against the said vacancy.

Be that as it may, we close this writ petition by permitting the petitioner to make representation, mentioning therein the post fallen vacant at Nadaun, as per clause 5.5 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, to the respondent/ authorities, within one week from today. On receipt of such representation, the respondent/authorities shall consider the representation of the petitioner, in the light of the transfer policy occupying the field, and pass appropriate orders, within two weeks. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.