IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7089 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Naveen Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Clerk in the Office of Sub Divisional Election Office, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 8th April, 2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Sub Divisional Election Office, Churah at Tissa, District Chamba, 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 petitioner herein could not have been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transferred to Tissa, which is at a high altitude on account of his health condition. While making this Court peruse documents adduced on record, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that petitioner is patient of heart disease and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to send him to far flung area of Tissa, where no adequate medical facilities are available. 3. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that once it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that he has never served in hard area, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned order. However, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for his adjustment at convenient station shall be considered expeditiously in terms of transfer policy. 4. Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that he has never served in hard area, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is suffering from heart disease, as is evident from the 3 medical documents adduced on record, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexures P-4 & P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon, taking note of transfer policy. Till the time, representation filed by the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station in terms impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 01, 2025 (shankar)