SANJEEV SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order of transfer, dated 30.9.2020, issued by respondent State transferring the petitioner from HP PWD Division Baijnath to QC and D, office of Chief Engineer, Mandi, the petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for following reliefs:

(2.) Pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, clearly reveal that the petitioner after being appointed as a Junior Engineer, in the year 1989, remained posted mostly in Kangra District save except for three postings out of District Kangra at Kullu, Sirmaur and Dalhousie (Chamba). Barring for nine years, petitioner remained posted in and around his home Division Palampur. Petitioner, who had been working as Executive Engineer, HP PWD Baijnath from 23.2.2018 came to be transferred to the office of QC and D, Chief Engineer, Mandi and as such, approached this Court in the instant proceedings, primarily on two grounds, (1) he has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure of three years and (2) he has been transferred on the basis of DO Note procured by respondent No.3.

(3.) Reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 though clearly reveals that the petitioner came to be transferred on the basis of a DO Note issued by Shri Mulakh Raj, MLA, Baijnath Constituency, whereby, he, while recommending transfer of the petitioner from Baijnath requested for posting of respondent No.3 at Baijnath, but the reply filed on behalf of the respondents further reveals that the petitioner, prior to his transfer in question, was transferred to PWD Division Dalhousie on 5.2.2018, from HP PWD Division Jawali, where he was working with effect from 15.2.2016, but he, with the help and aid of two UO Notes, got himself adjusted at Baijnath on 23.2.2018. UO Notes, on the basis of which petitioner was adjusted as Executive Engineer Baijnath, stand annexed as Annexures R-I and R-II with the reply filed by the respondents. In the aforesaid background, learned Advocate General and counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently argued that no relief, if any, can be claimed by the petitioner on the ground that his transfer has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by respondent No. 4.