IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8517 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gian Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Negi, Advocate vice Mr. J.R. Poswal, 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at GSSS Behal, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved of order dated May 2025, issued under the signature of Director, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GHS Ramni, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to impugned transfer order on the ground that since wife of the petitioner is serving in Thana, District Solan, coupled with the fact that he has two school going children, he - 2 - ought not have been transferred to tribal area, which is at a distance of more than 300 kms from present place of posting. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that once it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. Mr. Verma, states that since there is nothing to suggest that prior to impugned transfer of the petitioner, he ever served in hard/tribal area and as such, petition filed by the petitioner deserves outright rejection. 4. Having regard to order proposed to be passed, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by learned Additional Advocate General. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that petitioner has never served in hard area, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note of the fact that wife of the petitioner is working in District Solan and there is none to take care of minor children of both the petitioner as well as wife, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the - 3 - same with direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably, within ten days. 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 a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge