IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8387 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at Government Senior Secondary School Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GMS (Jalog) u/c Government Senior Secondary School Ogli, Shimla. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law for two reasons: firstly, the petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting; and secondly, he otherwise could not have been transferred on account of his having disability to the extent of 45%. 3. While making this Court peruse condition No. 3 of the note appended below the impugned transfer order, Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that since petitioner is physically disabled to the extent of 45%, he otherwise could not have been transferred to GMS (Jalog) u/c Government Senior Secondary School Ogli, Shimla. He states that on account of adverse family circumstances, wherein brother of the petitioner is also 70% mentally disabled, impugned transfer order, which has been effected in terms of violation of Transfer Policy deserves to be interferred with. 4. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, prayer made for setting aside of impugned transfer order deserves outright rejection. He states that as per averments contained in the petition, petitioner has served in and around Jhandutta for 2 more than nine years and as such, it cannot be said that on account of transfer, prejudice, if any, would be caused to the petitioner, rather same has been issued strictly in terms of Transfer Policy, which clearly provides that an employee after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting at one station may be transferred to another station. 5. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition itself suggests that petitioner has almost completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. Besides above, it also emerges from the pleadings that petitioner has remained posted in and around Jhandutta for more than nine years and as such, no interference is called for. However, having taken note of condition No. 3 of the note appended below the impugned transfer order vis-à-vis Disability Certificate placed on record, this Court finds that on account of having disability to the extent of 45%, petitioner could not have been transferred and as such, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within a period of 10 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 taking note of condition No. 3 of the note appended below the impugned transfer 3 order as well as Clause 5.6 of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek posting at a convenient station on account of his/her having disability. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4