Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 475 (HP)

Dinesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2023-12-01

RANJAN SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order(s) intended to be passed hereinafter. 3. The petitioner, working as Veterinary Officer, has filed the instant petition with the following prayer(s):- “(i) That the respondents No.1 and 2 may be directed to transfer the petitioner to a place of his choice as represented by him vide Annexure P-5. (ii) That the respondents No.1 and 2 may be directed to post the petitioner to a place other than a Hard/Difficult/Tribal area.” 4. Case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned counsel, is that the petitioner has completed the normal tenure as Veterinary Officer at the present station i.e. Veterinary Hospital Sangla, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur, H.P. Learned counsel submits that though the State Authorities had issued the Transfer Policy on 10.07.2013, whereby, the petitioner after having completed the normal tenure of two winters and three summers in hard/difficult/remote/rural areas and had submitted representations dated 05.10.2023, (Annexure P-5) and dated 10.11.2023, (Annexure P-6) are still pending and no action has been taken till day. 5. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner has already completed the normal tenure and the petitioner has neither any fundamental right nor any legal right to remain posted at the present station or choice of station. 6. The submission, so made by the learned State Counsel, appears to be genuine but at the same time this Court cannot shut its eyes, when, an employee who has completed the normal tenure in the tribal/hard/ difficult/remote areas is made to remain in such areas without inviting option or by not acting on his/her representation for posting in a soft areas but permitting others employees, who have neither served or had not served for normal tenure prescribed for such areas are allowed to remain in soft areas by action in defiance of or dehors its own policies, resulting in discrimination amongst employees in a cadre, leading to arbitrariness and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the considered view that the Transfer Guidelines-Policy issued by the State Government mandating in Clauses 12 & 16, that the employees who have already served in the tribal/difficult/remote/hard areas have a right to be considered for posting in soft area(s) by transferring him out from such area(s) by adopting a continuous process of change, so as to avoid the charge of discrimination amongst its employees. 7. In entirety of the facts, narrated above since the petitioner has already completed the normal tenure in present place of posting, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondent No.2-Directr of Animal Husbandry, Pashudhan Bhawan, Boileauganj, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to decide the representation dated 05.10.2023, (Annexure P-5) and representation dated 10.11.2023, (Annexure P-6), in terms of Clause 12 & 16 of the policy for redressal of grievance as referred to above within two weeks from today; with further direction to the aforesaid respondent to decide/examine the same within three weeks thereafter, in the light of Clause 12 & 16 of the Transfer Policy, and to ensure the implementation of its policy, equally to all concerned, to avoid charge of discrimination. In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition, as well as, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.