IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7849 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jangvir Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as PET at GHS Jamli u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Surla, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of office order dated 5.4.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from present place of posting to Government Senior Secondary School Devthi Majgaon, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but yet on - 2 - the basis of D.O. Note issued by the Local Representative of Nahan, he has been transferred to a school, which is at distance of 150 kms from present place of posting. Besides above, it has also been averred in the petition that on account of illness of wife of the petitioner, it is not possible for him to join at the transferred station because there is none to take care of his wife. 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 reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, states that though petitioner may not have completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but bare perusal of impugned order itself suggests that he remained posted within the radius of 20kms for more than three years and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. While seriously disputing allegation of the petitioner that his transfer has been effected on the basis of D.O. Note issued by Local Representative of Nahan, Mr. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that no material worth credence has been placed on record to substantiate aforesaid allegation and as such, same deserves outright rejection. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that petitioner has - 3 - already served for more than two years and seven months at present place of posting and as such, it cannot be said that he has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure. Moreover, impugned transfer order clearly reveals that competent authority while effecting transfer order has taken note of previous stay of the petitioner. As per transfer order, petitioner remained posted within the radius of 20 kms, prior to his posting at present place of posting. Once this Court is convinced and satisfied that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, allegation of effecting transfer on the basis of D.O. Note, if any, issued by Local Representative of Nahan, may not be of much help to the petitioner. Moreover, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that present place of posting as well as transferred station fall in Nahan Constituency, which is represented by Mr. Ajay Solanki, who has allegedly issued D.O. Note for transfer of the petitioner. Though there is no material worth credence to prove that impugned transfer has been effected on the basis of DO note issued by Mr. Ajay Solanki, but even otherwise, this Court cannot ignore the fact that above named person being Local Reprehensive of the area, can always make recommendation with regard to posting or working of an employee in his constituency. 5. For the reasons stated herein above, though this court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, but having taken note of material adduced on record suggestive of the fact that - 4 - wife of the petitioner is unwell, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation within one week, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station, enabling him to give proper treatment to his wife, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within one week taking note of observation made herein above as well as transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/ adjustment on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Ordered accordingly. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within one week, is decided by the competent authority, he shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge