IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5875 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ Anirudh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Veterinary Pharmacist in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside the impugned transfer order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been ordered to be transferred from VD Tundi, Chamba to VPC Shahpur, Kangra, vice respondent No.4. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner is nearing retirement, he ought not have been transferred, that too at a station, which is at a distance of 150 kilometers. 3. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting and he has more than two years to retire, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already approached competent authority by way of representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) for cancellation/adjustment of his transfer, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which admittedly provides that an employee nearing retirement shall be posted at the station of his choice. Till the time representation is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)