IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6972 of 2025 Decided on: 28th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manoj Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Mr. Devender Sharma and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Raditya Katoch, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Raditya Katoch, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is serving as Junior Technician (Painter) at HRTC Unit Local (Dhalli), Shimla. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted at the present place vide office order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-4). After a short stay of about eight months at the present place, the petitioner has been transferred under impugned office order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) to HRTC Unit Nahan. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned office order has not been given effect to as on 26.04.2025, when the petition was preferred. 3. A perusal of the impugned office order suggests that it has not even been issued on the basis of any administrative exigency or public interest. The office order simply states that it has been issued ‘As approved by the competent authority’. Reasons for transfer of the petitioner from his present place, where he has spent only eight months, to HRTC Unit Nahan have not been spelt out. Be that as it may. It is seen from the record that petitioner has preferred a representation against the impugned transfer order to respondent No.1 on 26.04.2025 (Annexure P-6). 4. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and also the grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition, within a period of two weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, the impugned office order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) shall remain stayed. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh