2025:HHC:11591 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7037 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pankaj Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kiran Kumar Chauhan, 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-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at Government Primary School Rakkar, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned Transfer Order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Primary School Ghirther (Rait), District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kiran Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of DO note issued by Sunder Singh Mankotia, who though does not hold any official position in the Government, but yet on the basis of his political affiliation, proceeded to issue DO note and respondents acting upon the same, transferred petitioner in contravention of transfer Policy. Besides above, it has been averred in the petition that petitioner is a disabled person and as such, he could not be transferred without his consent. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, fairly states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of positing, present petition deserves outright dismissal. He further states that petitioner does not suffer from such kind of disability, which prohibits him from rendering services at transferred station. 4. Since there is no dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, factum with regard to issuance of DO note, if any, by the respondent No. 4 may not be of much relevance. As per transfer Policy, employer is well within its rights to transfer an employee to any station, especially when, he/she has already completed normal tenure of posting. Otherwise also, there is nothing in the impugned transfer order to 2 suggest that the same was effected in the case of the petitioner on the basis of the D.O. note issued by respondent No. 4. However, having taken note of fact that petitioner is suffering from disability, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within a period of one week to the competent authority, praying therein for cancellation of transfer or adjustment at convenient station, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter taking note of Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek cancellation of transfer on medical grounds. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3