Ranjeet Singh Verma vs State of HP and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner prays that he may be posted either at Gopalpur or at Dharampur in Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, since the Petitioner is at the fag end of his career nearing his retirement.

Earlier the Petitioner had filed CWP No. 7612 of 2010, titled as Ranjeet Singh Verma v. State of HP and Anr. on similar grounds and this Court vide its judgment dated December 3, 2010 had directed the Petitioner to file a representation before the H.P. State Co-operative Development Federation and the same was to be considered by the Federation. Thereafter the President/Chairman of the Federation has considered the representation of the Petitioner and passed a detailed order. Relevant portion of which reads as follows:

...That from the entire perusal of the records it is clear that the case asset forth by Sh. Ranjeet Singh Verma is totally ill founded as no post of Co-operative Education Instructor is lying vacant at Dharampur and Gopalpur which are blocks under AR Circle Mandi. On this pretext Sh. Ranjeet Singh Verma has also misled the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. However, since Sh. Ranjeet Singh Verma is at the verge of his superannuation and only one year and two months is left for his superannuation, he can be adjusted at any of the places/peripatetic units where the posts are lying vacant i.e. CCM Mashobra, Shimla Urban or Nahan. Accordingly, Sh. Ranjeet Singh Verma shall be asked to opt for the aforesaid places so that he may be adjusted at the place he opts for at the earliest. In case he fails to opt for any of the offered places then, in such an eventuality office order dated 1.10.2010 transferring him to Centre for Cooperative Management Garli, District Kangra shall stands final.

It is not for the Court to run the administration, especially that of Federation and Co-operative Societies, but it is for the employer to decide which person should be posted at which place. Keeping in view the submission of the Petitioner that he is at the fag end of his career, the employer has already given him choice of four places, i.e. CCM Mashobra; Shimla Urban; Nahan Unit and Garli. This order was passed on 3.1.2011. No stay order was passed in favour of the Petitioner, but he of his own has not joined at any place. This Court cannot appreciate this behaviour of the Petitioner of virtually granting a stay to himself. He is an employee and should have joined, if stay order was not granted in his favour.

Be that as it may, I find that the Petitioner has spent more than 12 years at Sarkaghat and Mandi. Therefore, he cannot claim station of his choice. He has been given virtually four stations to choose. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The Petitioner shall intimate the station of his choice out of the aforesaid four stations to the Respondents within 15 days from today and in case he does not join at the station latest by 31st May, 2011, the Respondents shall be free to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.