IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7811 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar Vidyarthi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, 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 Principal in Quality-cum- DPO (Diet) at Tandi, District Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Gulling, District Lahaul & Spiti, 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 though petitioner herein has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but since he had 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 already served hard/ tribal area for more than 30 years, he could not be transferred to tribal area, rather ought to have been given one of the stations of his choice. Besides above, it has been also stated on behalf of the petitioner that since he is due to retire within one year four months, he could not be transferred to far flung area, rather ought to have been given station of his choice. 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. B.C.Verma, 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. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. It is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record, which are duly supported by the affidavit, that prior to petitioner’s posting at present place of posting, he had served hard/tribal area for more than 30 years and as such, ought to have been transferred to one of the stations of his choice. Interestingly, petitioner herein has been again transferred to tribal area, which is otherwise not permissible. 3 5. True, it is that petitioner hails from tribal area, as a result thereof, he remained posted in tribal area for more than 30 years, but once transfer policy itself provides for station of choice to an employee, who served in tribal area, respondents could not have transferred him to a station not of his choice. Though, at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the representation filed by the petitioner, submits that even in the representation petitioner has prayed for stations located in tribal area, but such fact, if any, may not be of much relevance for the reason that transfer policy prescribes for station of choice, which can be in any part of the State. 6. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of UO. Note, but that will not make any difference for the reason that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, however, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner on account of his having served hard/tribal area for more than 30 years, is/ was entitled to be posted at one of the stations of his choice and deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 8.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a 4 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 observations made hereinabove as well as transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time representation 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)