Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15580 (HP)

JAI SINGH v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/8747/2025 · 2025-05-26

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8747 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Jai Singh …….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: Mr. Vinod Chauhan and Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Pocca, Education Block Sataun, District Sirmaur, is aggrieved of order dated 19.05.2025, whereby he has been ordered to be transferred from afore station to GPS Shiri Kiyari, Education Block Shillai, District Sirmaur, against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner has already served in hard area, but vide impugned transfer order, he has been again transferred to hard area. He further states that otherwise also, taking note of retirement date of the petitioner i.e. July 2026, he could not have been transferred to a far flung area, rather, ought to have been given station of his choice. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing the impugned transfer order, however, Mr. Kahol fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for adjustment at a convenient station, on account of the fact that he is nearing retirement, same shall be considered expeditiously. 4. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, suggests that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present station. It is also not in dispute that prior to petitioner’s transfer to GPS Shiri Kiyari, Education Block Shillai, District Sirmaur, he has already served in hard area for nine years, if it is so, he otherwise could not have been transferred to hard area again. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioner is due to retire in July 2026 and as per transfer policy, person nearing retirement cannot be transferred to far flung area, rather, he is required to be given station of his choice. In view of the above, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent 3 authority praying therein for cancellation of transfer order or adjustment at a convenient station, within a period of one week, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of transfer policy. Till the time, representation, if filed within one week, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall be allowed to continue at present place of posting. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)