IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7985 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Ramneek Sahore ……...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. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. 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 Ayurvedic Medical Officer at Government Ayurvedic Health Centre (in short “GAHC”), Lalri, Una District Una, Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 22.2.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from the GAHC Lalri, Un to GAHC Polian Prohitan, Una. 2. Perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that since petitioner is not physically well and is under treatment, he ought not have been transferred to a distant place, which is at a distance of approximately - 2 - 60 kms from the present place of posting. While making this court peruse documents adduced on record, Mr. Ankit states that before approaching this court in the instant proceedings, petitioner filed representation dated 2.4.2025 (Annexure P-3), praying therein to cancel the transfer order or adjustment at any station, but till date same has not been decided. 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 reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting coupled with the fact that he is posted at District Una w.e.f. 2018, there is no scope, if any, for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order. While referring to the medical prescription placed on record, Mr. Chauhan, states that same pertains to year 2013. Lastly Mr. Chauhan, apprised this Court that pursuant to impugned transfer order, petitioner has already joined at the transferred station and as such, present petition has already been rendered infructuous. 4. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting coupled with the fact that pursuant to impugned transfer order, he has already joined at the transferred station, no scope has been left for this Court to interfere with the same - 3 - and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact that representation having been filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication before the competent authority, coupled with the fact that petitioner is under treatment as is evident from the documents adduced on record, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to competent authority to consider and decide his representation within two weeks, taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek cancellation/adjustment at a convenient place on medical grounds. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while giving personal hearing to the petitioner may also take note of vacant stations/longer stay, if any, brought to its notice by the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge