IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8577 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Puran 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: Ms. Archna Dutt, 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 is working as CHT at GCPS Bhalona Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of office order dated 21.5.2025 issued under the signature of Deputy Director (Elementary Education), District Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby petitioner herein came to be transferred from afore station to GCPS Nainidhar, Education Block Ronhat against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents while deciding representation of Sh. Tota Ram (respondent No.4) in terms of order dated 13.3.2025 - 2 - passed by this Court in CWP No. 3517 of 2025, though adjusted the above named Tota Ram at GCPS Bhalona in place of the petitioner taking note of the fact that he is going to retire within two years, but ignoring same fact, transferred the petitioner from GCPS Bhalona to GCPS Nainidhar, Education Block Ranhot. Mr. Archnna Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since petitioner herein is also due to superannuate within two years, he ought not have been disturbed, rather person namely Tota Ram ought to have been transferred against the vacancy, which was actually available at GCPS Nainidhar. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while issuing transfer order. He states that though Sh. Tota Ram has been adjusted in place of the petitioner, but same has been done taking note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 4. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court finds no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Careful perusal of order dated 21.5.2025, clearly reveals that same came to be - 3 - passed on the representation made by Sh. Tota Ram that since he is nearing retirement, he may be given a convenient station. This Court directed respondents to decide his representation in a time bound manner, as a result thereof, petitioner herein, who at the relevant time, was posted at GCPS Bhalona, came to be transferred to GCPS Nainidhar, Education Block Ronhat, being longer stay. Thought there is no dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting at Bhalona, but his precise grouse is that since he is also nearing the retirement, he could have been also transferred to a station of his choice. Since transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on account of the fact that he/she is about to retire within two years, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation to the competent authority, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P- 1) 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, taking note of transfer policy, which provides for adjustment of an employee, who is nearing retirement. Till the time representation is decided by the competent authority, - 4 - petitioner shall not be relieved, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge