IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8403 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: M/s Raman Parashar and Kr. Virender Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Naib Tehsildar in Sub-Tehsil Office, Dhami, Tehsil and District Shimla, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Sub-Tehsil, Tikken, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, against vacancy, on administrative grounds. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Raman Parashar, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable for two reasons; (i) petitioner has not 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, and (ii) he is due to retire on 28.02.2026. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that though on account of the fact that petitioner has already completed more than two years and three months at present place of posting, there is no scope of interference, but certainly, impugned transfer order needs to be reviewed on account of the fact that petitioner is due to retire within a period of nine months. 4. Since transfer policy promulgated by the State of Himachal Pradesh clearly provides that employee, having less than two years to retire, is not to be disturbed or to be given station of his/her choice, coupled with the fact that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned transfer order deserves to be allowed. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned transfer order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed & set-aside with the further direction to respondents to permit petitioner to remain posted at present place of posting, till his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 28.02.2026. -3- Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)