IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 325 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Priyadarshani .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 2: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). Petitioner is working as lecturer in English in Education Department of State of Himachal Pradesh, impleaded as respondent. No. 1. She was posted in Government College at Mandi, in September, 2008, when she applied for her adjustment in Government Sanskrit College at Sundernagar. Her request was acceded to and she was posted in Government Sanskrit College, Sundernagar, vide order dated 8th September, 2008, copy Annexure P-2. She was not given any transfer TA or joining time, because transfer had been made on her request. Vide impugned order dated 21st January, 2010, copy Annexure P-2, she has been transferred from Government Sanskrit College, Sundernagar to Government 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- College, Jogindernagar, and respondent No. 2, Smt. Promila Rahi, working in Government College, Jogindernagar, has been shifted to Government Sanskrit College, Sundernagar. The order says that both the lecturers, affected by the order, shall not be entitled to transfer TA and joining time. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is that she had been in college at Sundernagar, only for about one year and she, having not completed her normal tenure of three years, ought not to have been shifted because of the transfer policy of the Government, notified vide Annexure P-3. Another grievance of the petitioner is that when she had not made any request for transfer from Sundernagar, she should not have been denied transfer TA and joining time. Transfer is alleged to have been made to accommodate respondent No. 2. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Petitioner’s grievance that she, having not completed her tenure at Sundernagar, ought not to have been transferred, cannot be accepted for the reason that she was only accommodated at Sundernagar on her own request, because post of English lecturer was lying vacant there. Private respondent has completed her tenure at Jogindernagar and, therefore, she has become due for transfer. Someone was required to be posted in her place at Jogindernagar and, therefore, the present petitioner has been posted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that transfer, -: 3 :- having been made in the month of January, prior approval of Chief Minister was required, because the guidelines say that transfers would be effected only in April, May, and if they are made in some other month, Chief Minister’s prior approval is required. There is nothing on record, indicating that Chief Minister’s prior approval was not obtained. In any case, Annexure P-3 are only guidelines and in case, Chief Minister’s approval has not been obtained, this is a matter between the Chief Minster and concerned Department. 6. In view of the abovesaid position, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Petitioner’s counsel submits that after passing of order dated 9th February, 2010, regarding status quo, petitioner has been attending to her duties at Sundernagar, but her salary has not been released and that a direction may be given for release of salary. This Court, vide order dated 9th February, 2010, directed maintenance of status quo as on the date of passing of the order. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stood relieved on 3rd February, 2010. Therefore, she cannot be heard to say that she had been working at Sundernagar, on account of passing of order dated 9th February, 2010. So, no direction can be issued for release of salary. Petitioner should apply for leave for the period from 3rd February, 2010, onwards and respondent No. 1 is directed to grant leave of the kind due to petitioner and to pay the leave salary, accordingly, within one month from the date of submission of the application for -: 4 :- grant of leave. It is also directed that the petitioner, having not been transferred on her request, she shall be paid transfer TA and shall also be entitled to joining time. (Surjit Singh) Judge 20th July, 2010 (rajni)