High CourtsDivision Bench

Ranjana Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 8 November 2021 · Citation: (2021) 11 SHI CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ · Sabina, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No.6833 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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 · 383 words

Mohammad Rafiq, CJ

1.

This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Ranjana Devi, who is working on the post of TGT (Arts) in Government High School, Bharari, District Chamba, where she was posted on 1st September, 2018.

2.

It is contended that the normal tenure in service at one place, as per the Comprehensive Guiding Principles­2013 for regulating the transfer of State Government employees promulgated vide Office Memorandum dated 10th July, 2013, is three years. The petitioner has completed more than three years at Bharari. She has submitted a representation to respondent No. 2, i.e. Director of Elementary Education on 2nd September, 2021, for her transfer at a station in District Kangra, where her husband is working on the post of TGT (Non­Medical), who is presently posted at Government Senior Secondary School Rajiana Bandh, Tehsil and District Kangra.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 5.4 of the Office Memorandum, dated 10th July, 2013, contained in the Comprehensive Guiding Principles­2013 for regulating the transfer of State Government employees, to contend that it is the policy of the State Government that in case wife and husband both are working under the State Government, efforts should be made to post them at one place or nearby places, as far as possible, subject to vacancy.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has a minor son, who is living with his father and without the help of the petitioner, it is very difficult to manage him. Further, the father­in­law of the petitioner is 85 years' old, who is not keeping good health due to his old age. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents ought to sympathetically consider her case.

5.

Having regard to the limited nature of submissions made and without entering into the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No. 2, i.e. Director of Elementary Education, within a period of ten days from today, indicating the Schools where the vacancies in her subject are available. Respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the said representation by a speaking order within a period of fifteen days thereafter.

6.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.