2025:HHC:13770 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7643 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Attar Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at Government Primary School Ghasan, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GPS Korga E/B Sataun against vacancy in condonation of short stay, 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since the petitioner’s parents are unwell and aged, there is none to take care of them, he could not have been transferred from present place of posting to another station. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has been working at present place of posting since the year 2013, meaning thereby, he has worked at the same station for more than 12 years. As per transfer policy, an employee can seek transfer after his/her having served for three years at one place of posting and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned order. Though having taken note of aforesaid fact, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances, as have been detailed in the petition and came to be apprised to this Court during proceedings of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing 2 the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of facts, as detailed in earlier part of the judgment as well as the object and intent of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3