2025:HHC:11123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6785 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhag Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3-State. Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Panchayat Secretary at Gram Panchayat, Bairagarh, Development Block Tissa, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Gram Panchayat Satyas, Development Block Tissa, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajat Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since the petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting, he could not have been transferred that too when there is ban on transfer. 3. It has been averred in the petition that though petitioner has been working at present place of posting for more than one year and ten months, but no justifiable reason has been given for his transfer from present place posting to a station, which is at a distance of 15-20 Kms. 4. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 & respondent No. 4, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General & Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate, state that though at present of posting petitioner has been working for the last one year and ten months, but if the previous record of his posting is seen, he has been working in the same block for years together. Learned counsel for the respondents further state that otherwise also, petitioner has been transferred from one Panchayat to another Panchayat within same block and the distance between the same is not more than 10 Kms. 5. True it is that petitioner has been working at present place of posting for less than two years, but once it is not in dispute that he has been working in one block for years together, coupled with the fact that he has been transferred within same block and the distance between transferred station and present place of posting is not more than 10 Kms, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the 2 impugned Transfer Order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances as were apprised to this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, praying therein for cancellation of transfer/adjustment at convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time representation of the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority in terms of instant order, he shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in accordance with impugned Transfer Order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3