IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7977 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Class-IV employee at Government Senior Secondary School Nabahi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Tikkeri Sidhyani, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order, being passed in violation of Transfer Policy, is not sustainable in the eye of law. He states that since petitioner is suffering from 40% locomotive disability, he could not have been transferred, rather ought to have been offered station of his choice in the event of transfer, if necessary. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly 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. 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that petitioner is posted at present place of posting for more than ten years, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is suffering from 40% locomotive disability as is evident from Annexure P-1, this Court 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 three days, praying therein for adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass 2 appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station on account of disability/adverse family circumstances. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3