Ram Nath vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

This Court, while meteing an adjudication, upon, CWP No. 606 of 2021, on 1.2.2021, had made directions upon the petitioner, as well as, upon the respondents concerned, and, the apposite directions are carried in paragraph­4 of the afore order, paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter:

"Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation to the respondent/authorities concerned giving give stations of his choice, which must be spread in more than one district, within two weeks from today, in the light of clause 16.1 read with clause 16.5 of the transfer policy. On receipt of such representation, the respondent/authorities shall decide the representation of the petitioner, in the light of the transfer policy occupying the field, within two weeks. It is clarified that while deciding the representation of the petitioner the respondents shall consider the stations of choice of the petitioner as mentioned in his representation, subject to the condition that the incumbents posted there have completed their normal tenure of posting, in accordance with the transfer policy. In case none of them have completed the normal tenure then the office of the respondent/authorities shall get in touch with the petitioner apprising him of vacant stations where the incumbents have completed their normal tenure and the possible places where the petitioner can be posted."

The learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record, scribed instructions, detailing therein, that compliance to the order supra stands meted by the respondent concerned. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that, though the petitioner has given five stations of his choice to the respondent concerned, yet, the instructions of the respondents, do not reveal, that he has become posted in any of the five stations of his choice, as, had been represented to the respondent concerned, and, that it hence appears that the verdict supra remains uncomplied with.

However, at this stage, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the petitioner has, pursuant to order of 24.8.2021, joined at GSSS Karyuni, District Chamba, H.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner, does not contest, the afore made submission, before this Court, by the learned Additional Advocate General. Therefore, even if, there is prima­ facie non compliance, vis­a­vis, the afore directions, made by this Court, upon, the respondent concerned, yet, the joining of the petitioner at GSSS Karyuni, District Chamba, H.P. does tantamount to his acquiescing to the afore made posting, at the afore station, and, also his posting is construable to a waiver of his right, if any, to seek his being posted to any of the five stations of his choice, as, carried in the representation, as made to the respondents in pursuance to the directions supra.

In view of the above, the instant execution petition is closed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.