IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4988 of 2025 Decided on: 4th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashok Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is statedly serving as Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teacher at Government Primary School Balli, Education Block Hardaspura, Tehsil and District Chamba. His grievance is to the office order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) that transfers him to GPS Dughernu, Education Block Mehla-I, District Chamba. The aforesaid transfer order has been assailed on the ground that the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petitioner is suffering from several ailments in relation to his backbone. The place where the petitioner has been transferred under the impugned office order would involve covering a distance of about 7-8 kilometers on foot. In view of petitioner’s medical condition, it will not be possible to him to do so. In support of this submission, medical record of the petitioner has been appended alongwith the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been relieved from his present place of posting as on date and none else has been posted in his place. 4. It is seen from the record that the petitioner has not preferred any representation to the respondents against the impugned transfer order. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to prefer a representation to respondent No.2, seeking his adjustment, within a week and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ 3 petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a representation to respondent No.2/competent authority, indicating stations where he can be adjusted, within a week from today. In case such a representation is received by respondent No.2/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy as also keeping in view the ailment statedly being suffered by him, within two weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till decision of the representation, the petitioner shall not be relieved from his present place of posting. It is, however, clarified that in case the representation is not made within the aforesaid period, the protection granted under this order shall stand vacated. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh