IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8253 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Forest Guard at Forest Beat Markand, Forest Block & Forest Range Sadar under Forest Division Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by impugned transfer order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to RRT Bilaspur Forest 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Circle, vice respondent No. 5, Mr. Babit Kumar, who has been transferred from RRT Bilaspur Forest Circle to Forest Beat Markand, Forest Block & Forest Range Sadar under Forest Division Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Transfer Policy because petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure at present place of posting. He argued that otherwise also, private respondent could not have been transferred to Forest Beat Markand for the reason that he is resident of adjoining Beat i.e. Mungrani Beat. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as detailed hereinabove, have been seriously refuted. Though official respondents in their reply have admitted that petitioner has been working at present place of posting for the last two years, but an attempt has been made to justify the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that same has been effected in public interest. It has been averred in the reply that petitioner has been working within a radius of 30 Kms for the last 20 years. This Court, having taken note 3 of statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that private respondent belongs to Mungrani, which is adjacent to Markand Beat, specifically called upon learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions in that regard. 4. Pursuant to order dated 25.08.2025, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that as per instructions imparted to him, respondent No. 5 is resident of Mungrani and Mungrani Beat is adjacent to Markand Beat. As per Policy of Forest Department for posting of Forest Guard, no Forest Guard shall be posted in his home block or an adjacent block. If it is so, impugned transfer order needs to be interferred. Though it has been strenuously argued on behalf of respondent No. 5 that in past petitioner has been recipients of DO notes, but such fact, if any, may not be of much consequence because in any eventuality, respondent No. 5 cannot be transferred to Markand Beat, on account of his being resident of adjoining beat. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned transfer order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents, while permitting petitioner to remain posted at present place of posting, are also directed to ensure 4 that respondent No. 5 is given a fresh posting in a nearby station so that his family is not effected. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 27, 2025 (Sunil)