IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8841 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ravinder Singh ……...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. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar 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 Lecturer (SN) Chemistry at GSSS (Girls) Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of office order dated 17.5.2025, whereby he has been transferred from G(G)SSS Nagrota Bagwan Kangra to GSSS Sairan District Shimla, against a vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law because same has been passed in violation of transfer policy. Mr. Thakur, states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, he could not have been transferred to far flung area that too at a distance of more than 300 kms from present place of posting. He - 2 - further states that though perusal of transfer order suggest that same has been effected on the request of the petitioner, but at no point, petitioner ever made request for his transfer from present place of posting to transferred station. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, there is no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting and as such, there is no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order, which has been otherwise passed strictly in terms of the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the instant petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed more than 2 ½ years at present place of posting and as such, ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to short stay of the petitioner at present place of posting is not sustainable. 5. Though having taken note of the fact that there is a note appended against the name of the petitioner in the impugned transfer order that he may not be entitled to TTA/JT, meaning thereby, transfer has been effected on the basis of request made by the - 3 - petitioner, but learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner, at no point of time, prayed for transfer. Aforesaid mistake, if any, committed by the respondents can always be rectified. 6. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, but having taken note of the adverse family circumstances, as came to be apprised to this Court during proceedings of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction that in case petitioner files representation to the competent authority within one week, same shall be considered and decided, 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 a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer or adjustment at a convenient place on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time, representation is decided by the competent authority, he shall not be relieved, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge