Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6056 (HP)

JEEWAN SINGH v. STATE OF HP AND ANR

CWP/2227/2025 · 2025-02-25

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:3441 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2227 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jeewan Singh …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who after his having rendered 12 years service in hard area, was ordered to be transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Spail, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-2), praying therein to give him posting at one of the station of his choice. It is averred in the representation (Annexure P-2) that at the time of issuance of transfer order in the year 2018, he was not given station of his choice, but at that juncture he had no option, but to join at the given station for the reason that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3441 he had already served the hard area for more than 12 years, but now since one post is falling vacant at Government Senior Secondary School Pasu, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, prayer made on his behalf for his posting in soft area deserves to be considered in terms of transfer policy. 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed by this Court, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner, who at present is working as Lecturer (Economics) in Government Senior Secondary School, Spail, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh was initially posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Dharwas (Pangi) and thereafter was ordered to be transferred to soft area/station after his having served hard area for more than 12 years. Since at the time of issuance of transfer order in the year 2018, petitioner was not given station of his choice, coupled with the fact that one post of Lecturer (Economics) is lying vacant in Government 3 2025:HHC:3441 Senior Secondary School, Pasu, he has filed representation dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) to the Director Higher Education to consider his case for transfer from Government Senior Secondary School, Spail, District Kangra to Government Senior Secondary School Pasu, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, which is pending consideration. Since afore request made by the petitioner is yet to be considered by the respondents, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh to consider and decide the pending representation dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 25, 2025 (shankar)