IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8607 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surender Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Advocate. 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. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (Commerce) at Government Senior Secondary School, Dehar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School, Poura Kothi, District Mandi, which is at a distance of 65 kilometers from the present place of posting. 2. Though there is no dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but impugned transfer order has been assailed on the ground that son of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the petitioner has permanent disability to the extent of 60% and as such, in terms of Clause 5.6 of Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P-6), he could not have been transferred to a station, which is at a distance of 65 kilometers, rather, ought to have been posted at a station, convenient to him. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that since petitioner has already completed more than ten years at present place of posting and impugned transfer order stands executed, prayer made in the instant petition deserves to be rejected outrightly, however, Mr. Ravi Chauhan fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed for adjustment at a convenient station on account of ailment of son of the petitioner, same shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order of the petitioner and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of disability of the son of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on account of ill-health of 3 his/her child, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, relevant Clause of which has already been detailed hereinabove. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 23, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)