SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(HP) 758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, Sandeep Sharma, JJ.
Kamlesh Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 6040 of 2020
Decided On : 30-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Anup Rattan, Advocate, Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate

Employer's right to transfer employee after completing a tenure of three years at the station and the requirement of approval by the highest executive authority for the transfer order.

Headnote:

Transfer Order - Challenge to Transfer Order - The court upheld the validity of the transfer order, stating that the employer had the right to transfer the employee after completing a tenure of three years at the station. The court also found that the transfer order had the approval of the highest executive authority, and dismissed the challenge based on the replacement of the employee by a contractual employee.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner challenged a transfer order after serving for about three years at the station concerned.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the validity of the transfer order and dismissed the petition, stating that the employer had the right to transfer the employee after completing a tenure of three years at the station. The court also found that the transfer order had the approval of the highest executive authority.

Issues: Challenge to transfer order, approval by highest executive authority, replacement of employee by contractual employee

Ratio Decidendi: The employer had the right to transfer the employee after completing a tenure of three years at the station. The transfer order had the approval of the highest executive authority. The challenge based on the replacement of the employee by a contractual employee was dismissed.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - After serving for about three years at the station concerned, the writ petitioner, casts a challenge to the transfer order, borne in Annexure P-4. The afore tenure of three years hence completed, by the writ petitioner, at the station concerned, confers a valid right upon the employer of the writ petitioner, to make an order of transfer hence upon him.

2. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner has thrown a challenge to the impugned transfer order, on, the singular ground, of its not emanating from an approval being granted thereto, by the highest executive authority, of, the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, the vigor of the afore submission, becomes denuded, from scribed instructions, being placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General, wherein recitals occur qua the impugned transfer order, being made rather with the approval of the highest executive authority concerned.

3. Nonetheless the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has yet proceeded, to contend that since, he has been replaced, by a contractual employee, and, there being a ban against his being replaced by a contractual employee, hence the impugned transfer order, becoming ingrained with a vice of illegality. Even though, the afore argument, would become eroded of legal effect, if any, upon this Court, for the afore reasons validating the impugned transfer order, and, also its proceeding to direct, the respondents to ensure, the, replacement of the writ petitioner, rather with a regular employee. However, since the learned counsel, for the private respondent has alluded, to Annexure P3, and wherein a recital occurs, that, a contractual employee hence completing three years of service, is, to be treated at par, with a regular employee, and, also when he further on instructions, submits that the private respondent, has completed the afore tenure of contractual service at the station concerned, thereupon, also the private respondent can hence proceed to replace the writ petitioner hence a regular employee, at the station concerned. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top