1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6964 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.05.2025 Nakli Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents No.1 to 4-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner takes exception to office order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) that transfers him from HPPWD (B&R) Division Sundernagar to HPPWD (B&R) Division Karsog vice respondent No.5. 2(i). On 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-2), the respondents transferred the petitioner as Excavator-cum-Loader Operator from HPPWD (B&R) Division Sundernagar to HPPWD (B&R) Division Karsog. The petitioner assailed this transfer order by instituting CWP No.5971 of 2024. The said petition was withdrawn on 28.06.2024 for filing fresh petition on the same cause after impleading affected person. -2- 2(ii). Petitioner, thereafter, preferred CWP No.5989 of 2024 with the grievance that he had not made any request for his transfer, yet the respondents had disturbed him without letting him complete his normal tenure of three years at Sundernagar. The Coordinate Bench taking note of the fact that petitioner had completed more than 2½ years at Sundernagar, disposed of the writ petition with directions that petitioner be allowed to serve at Sundernagar till he completes three years. The respondents were given liberty to transfer the petitioner on his completing three years tenure. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned transfer order and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner now has completed more than 2½ years at the present place of posting, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner be allowed to serve at present place of posting, i.e. HPPWD B&R Division Sundernagar, till he completes three years and thereafter, the respondents shall be at liberty to transfer him.” 2(iii). Respondents thereafter issued an office order on 23.12.2024 temporarily deploying the petitioner from Sundernagar to the office of Executive Engineer, Seraj at Janjheli. Petitioner instituted CWP No.16611 of 2024 against the order. In the said writ petition, learned Additional Advocate General imparted the instructions that office order -3- dated 23.12.2024 temporarily deploying the petitioner at Janjheli had been withdrawn and petitioner was permitted to serve at Sundernagar. It was in view of the fact that petitioner had not completed his normal tenure of three years at Sundernagar at that time. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 01.01.2025. 3. Petitioner’s present grievance is to office order dated 21.02.2025 whereby he has been transferred from HPPWD (B&R) Division Sundernagar to HPPWD (B&R) Division Karsog vice respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned office order was issued on 21.02.2025 when the petitioner had completed 2 years and 10 months of stay at Sundernagar. He still had two more months in completion of three years of stay at Sundernagar. 4. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents, learned Assistant Advocate General placed on record office instructions dated 23.05.2025. As per these office instructions, the impugned office order was issued on 21.02.2025 but the petitioner was permitted to continue to serve at Sundernagar till 24.04.2025. He was relieved from Sundernagar only on 24.04.2025, i.e. on completion of three -4- years of tenure at the aforesaid place. As noticed earlier, the respondents were granted liberty by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.5989 of 2024 decided on 25.11.2024 to transfer the petitioner on his completing three years of tenure at Sundernagar. The petitioner was allowed to continue at Sundernagar till he completed three years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed three years of tenure when he was relieved by the respondents from Sundernagar on 24.04.2025, he having joined at Sundernagar 25.04.2022. No other point was urged. In these circumstances, no case of interference is made out in the impugned transfer order. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 27th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)