IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4427 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Parkash Chand …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is a Class-IV employee i.e. Porter posted at HRTC Head Office, Shimla, is aggrieved of order dated 22.03.2025 passed by Divisional Manager (HQ) Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, whereby he has been relieved from the present place of posting, with a direction to report for further duty to Regional Manager, HRTC Chamba Unit, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that without there being any transfer order issued by competent authority, petitioner has been relieved by Divisional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Manager (HQ) Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla. While referring to afore order, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner appears to have been relieved pursuant to some complaint, if it is so, he ought to have been issued show cause notice at first instance. He further states that otherwise in terms of transfer policy, Class-IV employee cannot be transferred out of the District. 3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Learned counsel for the respondents states that petitioner has been working in an around Shimla for more than two decades. He further states that as per transfer policy, transfer of Class-IV employee is required to be done within District, but in those departments where District cadre has been made. He states that cadre of the petitioner in respondent-Department is State cadre. However, learned counsel for the respondent was unable to dispute that impugned transfer order appears to have been issued upon a complaint made by third party. If it is so, petitioner ought to have been issued show cause notice before his transfer. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the 3 competent authority within a period of one week for redressal of his grievance, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon, taking note of the facts, as have been detailed hereinabove. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week in terms of instant order, is not decided by the competent authority, impugned transfer order shall remain stayed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27, 2025 (shankar)