1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 822 of 2025 Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 Deepak Upadhyay …… Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2/State. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 15415 of 2025, decided on 24.09.2025, whereby the petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed. No interference was done in the order of the transfer, whereby the writ petitioner has been deputed/stationed at Una to expedite the recovery proceedings of Una Zone. 2. Counsel has sought to argue that his deputation was without his consent. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The record of the proceedings had been called for. The same has been produced today and we have gone through the same. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank on the other hand submits that there was a valid reason to transfer the present appellant and even on earlier occasion he had been transferred in September, 2024, but for the reasons best known to him the transfer order was cancelled on 05.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) and he had then been posted as Legal Advisor to the Hon’ble Chairman. 5. It has been brought to our notice that way back in the year 2024, it was noticed that the appellant being the Law Officer, had been made Member of two teams constituted for recovery of the outstanding amount in Una which was to the extent of 1606 NPA accounts which was stated to be about 21% of the bank total NPA amount as on 31.03.2024. Being a Law Officer and a Legal Expert, he was associated with two teams consisting of Branch Managers and other Officers, as such, to expedite such recovery from the loanees, who were situated at Una. It is in such circumstances, he has been deputed/stationed at Una and cannot be said to be a deputation in any manner. There is neither borrowing department, as such, nor there is any consent or demand by borrowing department. It is merely the exigency of services by which he was stationed at Una. 6. We are also informed that his appointment was made in 2011 and he has been posted at Dharamshala and only for a short period 3 of one year he was stationed out to Palampur and had been stationed at Dharamshala during major period of his service. 7. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that merely because an argument is raised that summons as such received from the Managing Directorate of Enforcement on 17.09.2025 ( Annexure P-11) and his transfer was made on 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) would not be a ground as such to interfere as specifically there is neither any averment or allegation of malafide nor any Official has been impleaded in the personal capacity as a private respondent against whom such allegations could have been made. In the absence of any malafide or arbitrary action, it is settled principle that writ Court would not interfere. 8. Perusal of the impugned order of learned Single Judge would go on to show that learned Single Judge had referred to Chapter-9 of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Rules to hold that a person appointed in the bank can be posted to work in the head office of the Bank or any of its branches or vice-versa or at a place where the bank has any business. 9. In these circumstances, the transfer of the petitioner by stationing him at Una from Dharamshala is only for the exigency of employer, and as such, it is the duty of such employee to serve the employer. Resultantly, there is no plausible reason to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge which is well reasoned and based on 4 the principles governing the transfer of employees and the relationship, as such, inter se the employee-employer. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) February 25, 2026 (KS/ST) Judge