IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7749 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Kulvinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT in GPS Boul, Education Block Jol, District Una, H.P., is aggrieved of order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby he has been transferred from afore School to GPS Gharwasra, Education Block Bangana, District Una, H.P. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that petitioner has not yet completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, transfer order, passed in violation of the Transfer Policy, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents/State have filed reply, perusal whereof clearly reveals that petitioner has been working in the radius of 25 kilometers for more than ten 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 years, if it is so, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting. Needless to say, Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2734 of 2024, titled Monika Katna Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others has already held that clubbing of previous stay within the radius of 30 kilometers is permissible. 4. Since there is no dispute rather such fact has been fairly admitted by the petitioner that w.e.f. 31.12.2013, he has remained posted within the vicinity of 25 kilometers, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, this Court, having taken note of the adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, as came to be apprised during proceedings of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of two days, praying therein for adjustment/transfer at convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Till the time, representation, if filed within a period of 3 two days, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 15, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)