High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 02 SHI CK 0121

Veena Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 9 February 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 703 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 349 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

1.

Mr. R.R. Rahi, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. In view of the nature

of order being passed, no notice is required to be issued to respondent No.6.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is presently serving as Lecturer (Economics) in GSSS Jalag, District Kangra. Vide office

order dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), she has been transferred to GSSS Sarimolag, District Kangra. The petitioner has challenged her transfer on

the ground that the transfer has been effected during the ban imposed on transfers. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner is aged about 57

years and therefore, she should have been allowed to continue to work at her present place of posting till her superannuation in accordance with the

transfer policy.

3.

Transfer during the ban period can be effected in accordance with Clause 8.5 of the transfer policy with the prior approval of the competent

authority. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the impugned order has been passed with the prior approval of the competent authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) held by the petitioner is a Class-II post. The concession of posting

at preferred place available to the officials, who are likely to retire within two years, under Clause 5.5 of the transfer policy is only applicable in case

of Class-III and IV officials. Hence, no benefit can be availed by the petitioner under this clause also. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving

at the present place of posting w.e.f. 2013. As such, she has completed much more than her normal tenure at her present place of posting.

4.

Accordingly, the impugned transfer order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed alongwith

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner has any adverse circumstances, then it is for her to

represent to the employer and for the employer to take a decision thereupon.