Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 922 (HP)

PREM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-10-30

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal by consent forthwith. 2. THIS petition takes exception to the transfer order, dated 13th May, 2013. The principal argument, which has weighed with us, is that the impugned transfer order suffers from non -application of mind, inasmuch as it proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner was posted at Bagshad Block, Karsog Range, Karsog Forest Division, at the time of passing of the impugned order, dated 13th May, 2013, when, in fact, the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working at Pangna Range pursuant to partial modification of transfer order, dated 27th December, 2012. It is common ground that the petitioner had joined Pangna Range pursuant to the said order, but subsequent thereto, temporary charge at Tatta Pani was given to the petitioner vide order, dated 15th January, 2013, where the petitioner joined on that basis. Lateron, regular posting order at Tatta Pani was issued posting the petitioner at Tatta Pani vide order, dated 1st March, 2013. In other words, on 13th May, 2013, the petitioner was admittedly not serving at Bagshad Block, Karsog Range, Karsog Forest Division. The justification offered by the respondents is that the impugned transfer order, dated 13th May, 2013, was necessitated because of review of the entire matter in the light of Contempt Petition filed by Maghar Singh. The matter was examined at the appropriate level and the impugned transfer order came to be passed so as to ensure compliance of High Court order, dated 5th October, 2012, passed in CWP No.9784 of 2011, filed by Maghar Singh, challenging his transfer order. The fact remains that the impugned transfer order, dated 13th May, 2013, does not record correct position about the posting of the petitioner at the relevant point of time, for which reason the same suffers from non -application of mind and will have to be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 3. THE argument of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be posted at Pangna Range because it is adjoining to his home Range is a matter which may be considered by the appropriate Authority before passing fresh transfer order, if so advised. 4. 3. THE argument of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be posted at Pangna Range because it is adjoining to his home Range is a matter which may be considered by the appropriate Authority before passing fresh transfer order, if so advised. 4. IN the circumstances, we are allowing this petition with liberty to the appropriate Authority to issue fresh transfer order qua the petitioner keeping all questions open in that behalf. We are not expressing any opinion either way with regard those matters which will have be decided as and when occasion arises. That order be passed expeditiously. Until then, the petitioner would continue to work at Tatta Pani in terms of order, dated 15th January, 2013, read with order, dated 1st March, 2013. . Petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.