ANIL NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:-

(2.) Petitioner has sought quashing of his transfer order dtd. 13/1/2022 (Annexure P-2) on the ground firstly that his transfer has been effected after a short stay of 18 months and secondly, that he is due to retire on 31. 03.2023 i.e. within next one year and two months. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that impugned transfer order has been effected only to accommodate respondent No.2 who has obtained a D.O. Note from a local politician. The transfer has been effected during ban period and without condonation of short stay and thus smacks of legal malafides and vice of arbitrariness.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 has filed reply and has stated that the petitioner himself has been recipient of D.O Notes on earlier occasions and hence petition is not maintainable. Petitioner is Class-I Officer and hence cannot avail benefit of not being transferred within two years before date of retirement, which concession is available to Class-III and Class - IV employees. It has also been submitted by the private respondent that he has already joined at the place of his posting on 17/1/2022.