IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8309 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Bahadur Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3, which is accepted by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter neither the reply is required to be called from respondents No.1 to 3, nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner is serving as JBT and belongs to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - District Cadre. His grievance is to the office order dated 17.05.2025, that transfers him from GCPS Daya e/b Shillai, District Sirmour to GPS Thadidhar e/b Rajgarh, District Sirmour against vacancy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at the present place of place, which is a sub cadre area, he is entitled to be posted in accordance with the applicable transfer policy. The respondents have not given option to the petitioner for his preference posting. The impugned order, therefore, is not in consonance with the policy. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the impugned transfer has been issued on the basis of a D.O. note, however, he submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority, against the office order dated 17.05.2025, whereafter, respondent No.2/Competent Authority be directed to consider his representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection for the same. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this - 3 - writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority against the impugned order. In case such a representation is made within five days, the same shall be considered and decided by the Competent Authority, in accordance with law and as per applicable transfer policy, within next ten days thereafter. Copy of decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, till the decision of the representation, operation of office order dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case petitioner does not represent within the aforesaid period, the protection granted to him under this order shall automatically stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 20, 2025 R.Atal