IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7727 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Harbans Lal …….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. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Pharmacist, at PHC, Dhalwan, is aggrieved of order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to PHC, Salot, District Mandi, vice Mr. Ashwani Sharma, respondent No.3. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since petitioner has already served the hard area at CHC, Sangla, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, for more than three years, there was no 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 occasion, if any, to transfer the petitioner to PHC Salot, District Mandi, which is again a hard area. While referring to the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that an employee after his/her having served tribal/hard area is entitled to be posted to one of the stations of his choice. He states that since petitioner has already served hard area once in his service career, he cannot be again transferred to hard area. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. While disputing factum with regard to transfer of the petitioner to hard area, Mr. Verma states that PHC Salot, District Mandi, is not a hard area. He further states that there is no bar in transfer policy in transferring the employee to hard/tribal area, despite his/her having served hard/tribal area in past. Lastly, Mr. Verma states that though petitioner is not entitled to relief, as prayed for, but yet representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, expeditiously. 4. Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of 3 posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, but since petitioner has already served hard/tribal area in past, this Court 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 one week, praying therein for cancellation of transfer order or adjustment at convenient station, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the fact that transferred station i.e. PHC Salot, District Mandi, falls in the hard area and an employee, after his/her having served in hard/tribal area once, cannot be again made to serve at the station, without there being any administrative exigency or public interest. Till the time, representation, if filed within one week, 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 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)