AMRIT KUMAR v. STATE OF HP AND ORS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2024-12-18. AMRIT KUMAR v. STATE OF HP AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
2024:HHC:15017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12541 of 2024 Decided on: 18. 12. 2024 Sh. Amrit Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh an others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Shivom Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 and 2. : M/s Prem Prakash Chauhan and Shikha Rajta, Advocates for respondent No. 3. : Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order of transfer Annexure P-2 dated 20. 09. 2024 and the impugned order dated 21. 10. 2024 Annexure P-5 in the interest of justice.
ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issue for directing the Respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his normal tenure as Naib Tehsildar at Palampur in the interest of justice. ” 2. When this case was taken up for consideration, learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2024:HHC:15017 Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that said respondent, who has been transferred in place of the petitioner, has no interest to serve at Palampur and therefore, in these circumstances, this petition be disposed of by passing appropriate orders but with grant of liberty to respondent No. 4 to approach the Authority for his adjustment at some other convenient station. 3.
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was transferred from Palampur after a short stay of eight months, this writ petition is disposed of by ordering that the impugned transfer order Annexure P-2 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside with the direction that the petitioner be allowed to serve at Palampur for a normal tenure of three years, with liberty to respondent No. 4 as prayed for. 4. It goes without saying that in the event of the private respondent filing any representation within a period of one week from today, let a call be taken thereupon within a period of three weeks as from the date of receipt thereof. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 18, 2024 (narender)
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.