IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7751 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jitender Bharti ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, 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 Superintendent Grade-II, in the office of Deputy Director, (AH/B) Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to office of Deputy Director, (AH/B) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, vice Mr. Ravinder Singh, respondent No. 3. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since son of the petitioner is 100% disabled, he could not have been transferred from present place of posting to the transferred station, which is located at a considerable distance. 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. He states that representation (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings that petitioner has been working at present place of posting since the year 2020, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the disability of the son of the petitioner, 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-5) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from today. 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 facts, as detailed in earlier part of the judgment as well as the object and intent of transfer policy formulated by the Government of 2 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