Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“a) A writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and thereby quash the impugned order dated 24-2-2014 Annexure P-2 and order of transfer dated 23-4-2014 Annexure P-4.

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and thereby directing the respondent no 3 to allow the petitioner to work at IGMC Shimla till the final outcome of this writ petition.”

2. The facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed as Radiographer with the respondent-Department in the year 1980 and joined his duties on 22.10.1980. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Radiographer and was serving in the IGMC Shimla. The petitioner was transferred vide order dated 23.03.2013 from IGMC, Shimla to CHC Amb (Matri), District Una, H.P. Feeling aggrieved by the said transfer order, he had preferred CWP No.1770 of 2013, titled, Ramesh Chauhan vs. State of H.P. and others before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2013, quashed the transfer order dated 23.03.2013. However, later on, the petitioner was again transferred vide office order dated 27.12.2013 from IGMC, Shimla to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner again feeling aggrieved by the transfer order, preferred CWP No.10026 of 2013, which was disposed of on 06.01.2014 by granting liberty to him to approach the respondents/competent authority by making a representation, who will decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order. However, the petitioner neither filed any representation nor turned up for the personal hearing and was relieved, in compliance with the transfer order dated 27.12.2013.

3. The petitioner again approached this Court by preferring CWP No.1656/2014 against the transfer order dated 27.12.2013 and his relieving, however, his petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to comply with the order passed by this Court in CWP No.10026/2013. The petitioner instead of joining at the transferred place, had applied for voluntary retirement on 24.01.2014 from Government service and had specifically mentioned the date as 30.04.2014. As per request made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 had passed an office order on 24.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) retiring him from Government service on 23.04.2014 afternoon under Rule 3(2) of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976, subject to the condition that outstanding amount, if any, shall be recovered from the official concerned first, before the date of his retirement.

4. The petitioner before the date of his retirement fixed as 23.04.2014,moved an application on 22.04.2014 (Annexure P-3) for withdrawal of his resignation. But respondent No.3 had passed an office order on 23.04.2014 (Annexure P-4) relieving the petitioner from his duties on premature retirement on his request, under Rule 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976 in compliance with the earlier order dated 24.02.2014 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by his premature retirement had issued legal notice dated 06.07.2014 (Annexure P-5), averring therein that neither any action has been taken on the withdrawal application of resignation made by the petitioner, which was received vide Diary No.3201 dated 22.04.2014 in the office of respondent No.2,nor any intimation has been given to him. Respondent No.2 after receipt of the legal notice had passed an order on 26.07.2014, noticing that the request made by the petitioner was diarized vide Diary No.3201 dated 22.04.2014, which was put up on file on the same day for perusal and further necessary directions/orders of the higher authorities. However, after going through the complete contents of file as also the detailed corresponden