Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:24912 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11164 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 24.07.2025 Lalit Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur and Ms. Nandita, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Kumar Bhatia, CGC, for respondent No.1. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The challenge in the present Civil Writ Petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.063/779/2022 dated 18.03.2025. 2. The Tribunal as such had dismissed the Original Application which was against the transfer order dated 01.08.2022, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be posted from JNV, Solan to JNV, Mansa. 3. The reasoning as such by the Tribunal to reject the prayer was on the ground that the present writ petitioner was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 initially posted at JNV Fatehgarh Sahib upon recruitment. He was transferred from JNV Shimla on request basis. Thereafter, his transfer from JNV Solan was in public interest and he served there for more than 20 years under the spouse ground priority category. 4. It was accordingly held that the official respondents could not have saved and accommodated certain employees, including the private respondents, while disregarding the claims of others, and therefore, the Tribunal did not interfere with the transfer order. 5. Apparently, the petitioner as such is aggrieved by his transfer in view of the fact that his wife is a State Government Employee and the said directions were sought to consider the case of the petitioner for posting him at one of the stations of his choice at Kullu and Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh as per prayer of the Original Application. Also, apparently, she was posted as PGT, History at Government Senior Secondary School, Badlaq, Solan. Merely because in the Transfer Drive, wherein he had opted for Hamirpur and on 09.06.2022, the official website reflected that he was allotted Hamirpur but the final order placed him at Mansa in the second round of Transfer Drive, he had opted for Kullu and Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh as per his prayer 3 and would not as such give him any indefeasible right to only opt for Hamirpur. 6. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Court would not ordinarily interfere with transfers and only would interfere on the grounds of malafides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness. The welfare of all the employees as such has to be seen and therefore, it also placed reliance upon the several principles laid down regarding transfers by the Apex Court in Shilpi Bose & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors., 1991) Supp. (2) SCC 659, Union of India & Ors. V. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State of M.P. & Ors. V. S.S. Kourav & Ors., 1995 (3) SCC 270 and State of U.P. & Ors. V. Gobardhan Lal & Ors., (2004) 11 SCC 402. 7. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that having stayed for more than 20 years at Solan, the petitioner as such cannot avail any plausible reason to challenge the order for transfer to Mansa. It is not disputed that he is working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Arts, who was appointed way back on 24.09.1991 and his initial posting was at JNV, Farour and Ferozepur in Punjab and thereafter, he posted at JNV, Theog, Longowal and thereafter at Solan from 1991 to till 2001. Apparently, thereafter, for a long period of 20 years, he has been 4 stationed at Solan and therefore, it is also for the employer to see how they have to utilise their employees and also ensure that no heart burn is caused to any person and an employee is not entitled to stay on at a one particular place for years to come. 8. In such circumstances, the detailed reasoning of the Tribunal while dealing with the impugned order of the transfer cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity which would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2025 (munish thakur)