IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7853 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhagat Ram Azad ……...Petitioner Versus H.P. Gramin Bank and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 28.4.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby petitioner, who at present is working as Officer Junior Management (OJM-I), at Jagatkhana, District Kullu, Mandi Region, has been ordered to be transferred from afore station to Bilaspur, Hamirpur Region, on administrative grounds, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order on medical grounds. 2. Precisely facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that prior to passing of impugned transfer order, respondent-Bank vide order dated 16.4.2025 (Annexure P-1), transferred the petitioner from Jagatkhana - 2 - to Oddi, Solan Region, but petitioner being aggrieved of afore order approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6509 of 2025, but before same could be decided on its own merits, respondent bank vide order dated 19.4.2025 (Annexure P-2), cancelled the transfer, as such, this Court disposed of the afore petition as having rendered infructuous. Within nine days of cancellation of transfer order, petitioner herein again came to be transferred vide impugned transfer order dated 28.4.2025 (Annexure P-4) from Jagatkhana to Bilaspur, Hamirpur Region. In the afore background petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside impugned transfer order on the ground that taking note of critical health of the petitioner, he could not have been transferred to Bilaspur. 3. Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while making this court peruse documents adduced on record states that petitioner is suffering from renal failure and as such, in terms of transfer policy, he could not have been transferred to far flung area, rather ought to have been adjusted at a convenient station. He states that since petitioner is undergoing treatment from MAX Hospital, Chandigarh, it may not be convenient for him to stay at Bilaspur, rather he can be transferred somewhere in Shimla-Kalka Highway. While referring to clause 11 of the policy, he states that since petitioner is due to retire within three years, he is otherwise required to be posted in his home region i.e. Solan. - 3 - 4. To the contrary, Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned transfer order. He stated that taking note of the critical health condition of the petitioner, respondent bank cancelled his transfer vide order dated 16.4.2025 and posted him at Bilaspur, which is the most suitable station. Mr. Khajuria, states that at Bilaspur, besides there being AIIMS, petitioner can always go to Chandigarh for treatment in shortest possible time. He further states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting at Jagatkhana coupled with the fact that petitioner has been given posting at Bilaspur on his representation, no interference in the impugned transfer order is called for. 5. Having taken note of the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Since it is quite apparent from the material available on record that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that respondent Bank taking note of critical ill health of the petitioner has already posted him at a convenient station at Bilaspur, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is due to retire within three years and there is a provision in the policy to - 4 - give posting to an employee nearing retirement at a station located in home region, this court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation to the competent authority for his posting in home region within one week, which in turn shall be decided within ten days. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking note of clause 11 of the transfer policy (Annexure P-6). Till the time fresh representation, if any, filed by the petitioner is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge