IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7821 of 2025 Date of Decision:13.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Harbans Kumar …….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. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, 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 Lecturer(Political Science) at Government Senior Secondary School Dadasiba, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore school to Government Senior Secondary School Bagheigarh, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh against vacancy. 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 since petitioner has already served in hard 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 area for more than six years, he could not have been again transferred to hard area i.e. Bagheigarh. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 effecting transfer of the petitioner from present place of posting to Bagheigarh, District Chamba. Learned Deputy Advocate General states that for more than 18 years petitioner is posted at present place of posting and as such, prayer made on his behalf through instant petition deserves to be rejected out rightly. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner remained posted at present place of posting for more than 18 years, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of the fact that prior to petitioner’s posting at present place of posting, he had already served hard area for considerable time and he has been again sent to hard area, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority for his adjustment at nearby station on account of adverse family 3 circumstances, as came to be apprised to this Court during the proceedings of the case. 5. True, it is that transfer policy nowhere suggests that an employee after his/her having served tribal area once during service tenure cannot be again posted in hard area, but it is also not in dispute that very object and intent of transfer policy to ensure that every employee of the State of Himachal Pradesh is made to serve tribal/ hard area once in his/her life time. This Court in catena of cases has repeatedly advised State of Himachal Pradesh to ensure that instead of sending one employee again and again to hard area, endeavour should be made to ensure posting of such employee to hard area, who have never served in hard/tribal area. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits 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 one week, praying therein for cancellation of his transfer order, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of two weeks. 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 observation made hereinabove as well as very object and intent of transfer policy 4 as indicated hereinabove. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of 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 13,2025 (shankar)