Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8383 (HP)

MANOHAR LAL v. THE HRTC AND OTHERS

CWP/3283/2025 · 2025-03-10

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:5366 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3283 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manohar Lal ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Head Mechanic at HRTC Regional Workshop Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to transfer him from the present place of posting to soft area or the station of his choice. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. It is quite apparent from the perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, that the petitioner herein has been working as Head Mechanic at HRTC Regional Workshop Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh since 31.01.2022, meaning thereby, he has completed normal tenure of posting in hard area i.e. two winters and three summers. If it is so, he is entitled to be transferred to soft area and posted at a station of his choice. 3. 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 respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take of provision contained in Transfer Policy and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2