IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7971 of 2025 Date of Decision:15.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yashwant 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: Mr. Surinder Saklani, 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 (Arts) in Government Senior Secondary School Sandhole, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid school to Government Senior Secondary School Kuthar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner is left with one year one 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 month service only, he could not have been transferred to a distant place, rather ought to have been given posting at a station of his choice. 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned transfer order. He states that in case, petitioner files representation on the ground of his retirement within a period of one week, same shall be considered in accordance with law. Since petitioner has already completed the normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is left with one year one month service, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee nearing retirement to seek transfer/ adjustment at a station of his choice, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within 3 a period of one week, praying therein for cancellation of his transfer order/adjustment at nearby 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy. Till the time representation, if any, 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 15,2025 (shankar)