High CourtsSingle Bench

Shallu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 9 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 SHI CK 0014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Malimath, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 3213 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

21 paragraphs · 359 words

Ravi Malimath, J

CMP No.6164 of 2021.

Allowed and disposed off.

CWP No.3213 of 2021.

1.

Notice. Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, takes notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

2.

Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of transfer dated 05.06.2021 vide Annexure P-6, transferring her from GSSS Hathol (Hamirpur) to GSSS

Mohini (Kullu). In the earlier round of litigation, the said order of the transfer was set aside, permitting the petitioner to make a representation.

Thereafter, the representation was considered and the order of transfer was cancelled. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.

3.

Firstly, it is contended that the daughter of the petitioner is suffering from a rare disease and therefore, the petitioner should not be transferred.

However, the order indicates that she has been transferred to GSSS Mohini at Kullu. It is submitted by the respondents’ counsel that adequate

medical facility is available at Kullu.

4.

The further ground being contended is that her husband is also a Government servant and is presently working as Agriculture Extension Officer at

AEO Circle, Nagrota Surian, District Kangra. Therefore, he pleads that in view of the Government Policy, the husband and wife should be posted at

the same place.

5.

It is brought on record by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, who accepts notice for respondents No.1 & 2, that the petitioner has

been in this position for the last seven years and therefore, it is too long a period for her to continue in the same position. He submits that as and when

a representation is made to the said effect, the same will be considered as expeditiously as possible.

6.

For all these reasons, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is always

at liberty to make a representation, seeking her posting to her husband’s place of working or to any other nearby place or to any other convenient

place. As and when the representation is made, the State shall consider the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

Pending miscellaneous application is disposed off.