IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7953 of 2025 Date of Decision:15.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chaman Lal …….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. Munish Datwalia, 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 Peon in Government Senior Secondary School Kothipura, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid school to Government Senior Secondary School Niharkalan Basla, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh vice Sh. Madan Lal, respondent No.3. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order has been issued in violation of transfer policy. He states that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of D.O. Note issued by respondent No.4 i.e. Ex-MLA of Kot-Kehloor constituency, Bilaspur. Besides above, it is also averred in the petition that petitioner is 45% permanently disabled as such, he could not have been transferred to a distant place, rather should have been accommodated at a school near his native place. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has already completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and distance between present place of posting and transferred station is only 13 KM, present petition deserves outright rejection. 4. Since, it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record that petitioner herein, who is a Class-IV employee, has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and distance between present place of posting and transferred station is only 13 Km, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken 3 note of the fact that petitioner is 45% permanently disabled, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority for his adjustment at a school near to his native place within a period of one week, so that some family member becomes available to petitioner at the time of any crises or need, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of ten days, taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds. 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)