High CourtsDivision Bench

Ravi Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 5 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 SHI CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J · Satyen Vaidya, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 4340 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

20 paragraphs · 370 words

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

1.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive relief:

i) That the impugned transfer order dated 3.8.2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue at the

present place of posting in the interest of justice and fair play or in alternative the respondent may kindly be directed to adjust the petitioner at near by

places in his home town district in the interest of justice and fair play.

2.

It would be noticed that the only ground on which the petitioner seeking quashing of transfer order is founded on individual hardship. However, it is

more than settled that the Courts are extremely slow to interfere directly in personal hardship cases, the clear implication of the almost consistent

directions given in the cases are that the transferee could make a representation to the competent authority.

3.

Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and

another (1993) 1 SCC 148 , wherein it was observed as under:

“7..... The appellant has not made any representation about personal hardship to the department. As such, there was no occasion for the

department to consider such representation. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear

that the appellant will be free to make representation to the concerned department about personal hardship, if any, being suffered by the appellant in

view of the impugned order. It is reasonable expected that if such representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as

expeditiously as practicable.â€​

4.

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to permit the petitioner to make a representation within one week from

today, which shall positively be considered by the respondents sympathetically within a period of three weeks. It is made clear that this order shall not

be treated as precedent in future.

5.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

For compliance to come up on 02.09.2021.