IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7095 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sunil Dutt ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Ghatasni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 24.4.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Lagru, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of transfer policy because petitioner could not have been transferred on account of the fact that he is due to retire within two - 2 - years. While making this court peruse transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that any employee nearing retirement/ having less than two years to retire, can only be transferred to one of the stations of his choice. He states that though petitioner has already served in various parts of the State, but now at the fag end of his career, he is being sent to hard area. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at the present place of posting, coupled with the fact that approximately two years have been left for his retirement, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned order. 4. Close scrutiny of pleadings, which are duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that petitioner had been working as Principal at present place of posting w.e.f. 21.8.2021, meaning thereby, he has already completed normal tenure of posting at afore station. Similarly, it also emerges from the pleadings that at present, petitioner is 56 years old, meaning thereby, he is to retire in two years. As per transfer policy, an employee having less than two years to retire can only be transferred to one of the stations of his choice, however, in the case at hand, petitioner is to retire within two years, coupled with the fact that he has already completed normal tenure at aforesaid station, - 3 - there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 5. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner is to retire in two years, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station in terms of transfer policy within three days, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within one week. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy. All pending applications stand disposed of. May 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge