IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7865 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sudershan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, 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 TGT (Non- Medical) at Government Middle School, Kathiara u/c Government Senior Secondary School Garli, Tehsil Pragpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore school to Government High School Panjala u/c Government Senior Secondary School Sansal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order has been passed by the respondents in violation of transfer policy because petitioner herein has been not permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. As per the averments contained in the petition petitioner has already completed 1 ½ year at present place of posting and as such, he could not have been transferred before his having completed at least three years at present place of posting. It is also averred in the petition that wife of the petitioner is also serving in District Kangra and as such, being a couple case, option should have been given to the petitioner to choose station. Documents have been adduced on record to show that the petitioner is not medically fit as such, he needs constant care from the family members. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. 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 passing impugned transfer order. He states that though petitioner was working at present place of posting for more than 1 ½ year, but record clearly 3 reveals that throughout his service career, he remained posted in District Kangra. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though at present petitioner is posted at Government Middle School Kathiara u/c Government Senior Secondary School Garli, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and there he has only served 1 ½ year, but it is also apparent from the record that prior to his posting at present place of posting, petitioner has been serving in District Kangra, save and except initial appointment of the petitioner, which was in District Una, petitioner always remained posted in District Kangra. Needless to say, petitioner being member of State cadre is liable to be posted in any part of the State. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, though this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, but having taken note of the fact that wife of the petitioner is serving in District Kangra, coupled with the fact that petitioner is unwell, as is evident from the medical documents adduced on record, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, praying therein for his adjustment at nearby station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of 4 one week, taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as provisions contained in the transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer/ adjustment on the ground of couple case as well as adverse medical condition. Till the time, representation, if 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 in terms impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 14, 2025 (shankar)