IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7809 of 2025 Date of Decision:13.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajiv Singh …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, 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 JBT at Government Primary School, Sai, Education Block Rakkar, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore school to Government Primary School, Judhar, Education Block, Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 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 on account of adverse family circumstances, he could not be transferred from present place of posting to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transferred station, which otherwise is at a distance of about 200 KM. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that mere factum with regard to posting of the petitioner against vacant post, coupled with the fact that none has been transferred vice him, clearly suggests that transfer of the petitioner has been effected in routine manner and no public interest would have suffered in case he was not transferred. While admitting factum with regard to completion of his normal tenure at present place of posting, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has already filed representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance as such, he would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, he is estopped from laying challenge to impugned transfer order. Since there is no dispute with regard to petitioner’s having completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to 3 be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. 4. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances, as were apprised to this Court during the proceedings of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week. 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 appropriate order, taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as guiding factors given in the transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 13,2025 (shankar)