IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7979 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Sewak Ram Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Des Raj Thakur, 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 Shashtri at Government Model School Khanora, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Bhanthal, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Model School Durkanu, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Kandha, 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 has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that though there is none to look after his old aged mother and his son is studying in +1 (Science Stream), but taking note of the fact that his wife is also working in Education Department and she has been transferred to a distant place, so he ought not to have been transferred. He further submitted that since at both the stations Science Stream is not available, it may not be possible for the petitioner to admit his son in Science Stream at transferred station, rather on account of aforesaid fact, impugned transfer order needs to be cancelled. 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, 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. He states that ground otherwise raised by the petitioner with regard to non- availability of Science Stream at a transferred station may not be sufficient for this Court to intervene in the impugned transfer order. 2 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record that petitioner has been working at present place of posting for more than five years, coupled with the fact that petitioner has remained posted throughout in Karsog Division, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 5. Though at this stage, Mr. Des Raj Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that impugned transfer order is outcome of political interference caused by respondent No. 4, who though does not hold any constitutional post in the Government, but yet being a political person recommended the transfer of the petitioner. However, this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Des Raj Thakur, for the reason that once it stands duly established on record that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, issuance of note, if any, by the non-political person may not be of much relevance. Similarly, this Court is not impressed with the argument of Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that wife of the petitioner has been transferred at a distant place and as such, impugned transfer order is unjust. However, having taken note of the fact that there is none to take care of ailing mother of the petitioner, who is aged person, coupled with the fact that petitioner’s son may be in difficulty on account of transfer of the petitioner 3 because of the non-availability of the Science Stream at a transferred station, 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 cancellation of transfer/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 appropriate orders taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station on account of 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 4