IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6901 of 2010. Decided on: 22.12.2010. __________________________________________________ Tarjan Sharma … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. For respondent No.3 : None despite issuance of notice through speed post. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 6 (i):- “6 (i). That the impugned transfer order Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue at Government College, Kullu.” 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 4 (c) & (d) on merits:- “3. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the respondent No.3 Smt. Dwarika Devi, Senior Lecturer Assistant, Govt. College, Kullu is permanently 53% handicapped as declared by the medical board Kullu as per their medical certificate issued in the month of May, 1994. So the respondent No.3 cannot be disturbed/transferred being handicapped as per transfer policy of the State. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 4 (c). That in reply to this para it is submitted that the petitioner has rightly been transferred as he was senior-most in stay at Govt. College, Kullu and respondent No.3 cannot be transferred being handicapped. (d). That in reply to this para it is submitted that the petitioner has no plausible reason to assail the transfer orders, as the stay of the petitioner is also more than three years at Govt. College, Kullu.” 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been transferred pursuant to rationalization policy framed by the respondent-State. As per this policy, in case an employee becomes surplus, the senior-most incumbent in the discipline/cadre is required to be shifted to some other institution/station. As per list of Senior Lecturer Assistants (SLA)/Junior Lecturer Assistants (JLA) of Government College, Kullu, Annexure P-2, private respondent No.3, Smt. Dwarika Devi is the senior-most incumbent SLA working in Government College, Kullu. As per policy, it was she who was to be shifted. However, it was not done on the ground that she is suffering from permanent disability to the extent of 53% and instead the petitioner who is the next senior-most incumbent SLA has been moved from Government College, Kullu to Government College, Hamirpur. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of letter dated 7.7.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which is taken on record, according to which employees with 60% physical disability are entitled for a place of posting of their choice or in the alternative on road-heads or convenient stations. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since 3 the disability qua private respondent No.3, Smt. Dwarika Devi, falls below the prescribed limit of 60%, she was not entitled for any benefit on this count. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the entire matter in the light of list of SLA/JLA of Government College, Kullu, Annexure P-2 and aforesaid letter dated 7.7.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and take a final decision in the matter within a fortnight from production of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and private respondent No.3, if so desired. Interim order dated 1.11.2010 shall continue till then. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. December 22, 2010. (cr)