IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8105 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Parmod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who has been recently promoted as Kanungo, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from Patwar Circle Sei Kothi, Tehsil Churah to office of Sub-Divisional Office (Civil) at Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, as Kanungo. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Tanuj Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since petitioner has already served in hard area for considerable time, he could not have been again transferred to hard area, on the pretext of promotion. Besides above, Mr. Tanuj Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse material adduced on record, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 attempted to argue that petitioner, on account of his ill-health, is otherwise unable to join at Pangi, which is hard/tribal area. 3. Vide order dated 16.05.2025, this Court called upon learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions that since petitioner has already served in hard area in past, why he is again sent to hard area. Pursuant to afore direction, learned Additional Advocate General has received instructions. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that as per instructions imparted to him, prior to passing of the impugned transfer order, petitioner was transferred from Patwar Circle Sei Kothi, Tehsil Churah to some other station, but he approached this Court that on account of medical grounds, he cannot be transferred to hard area. Taking lenient view, respondent-department considered the petitioner’s representation and adjusted him at Patwar Circle Sei Kothi, Tehsil Churah, i.e. home Tehsil, where he remained posted till his promotion. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General further states that during entire service of ten years, petitioner neither served outside the home Teshil. 5. Mr. Tanuj Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while responding to aforesaid submission of learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that since petitioner remained posted in Churah for considerable time, it cannot be said that he has never served in hard/sub-cadre area, rather, on account of his having 3 served in hard/sub-cadre area for considerable time, he ought to have been offered soft station and not tribal area. 6. True it is, that as per Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, an employee is entitled to be posted in soft area or one of the station of his choice, after his/her having served in hard area, but in the instant case, petitioner, who is resident of Churah, remained posted in Sei Kothi, Tehsil Churah, for more than ten years, as such, he cannot claim aforesaid protection. Moreover, it is not in dispute that petitioner is being transferred on account of his promotion to the post of Kanungo. Till the time, respondent-department kept on adjusting the petitioner on his request, in his home Tehsil, he never raised plea with regard to posting in soft area, but once he has been transferred from his home Tehsil to tribal area, he has set-up a plea that on account of his being posted in hard area for considerable time, he is entitled to be transferred in soft area, which plea, on account of facts and circumstances as narrated hereinabove, is not tenable. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of ill-health of the petitioner, as is evident from the documents adduced on record, this Court while disposing of the petition, deems it fit to reserve liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for adjustment at a convenient station, within a period of two days, which in-turn, shall be decided by the afore authority, 4 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. 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 thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to get himself/herself transferred/adjusted at convenient station, on medical grounds. Till the time, representation, if filed within a period of two days, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 18, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)