IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8877 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh 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. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, 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 Senior Assistant, in the office of Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to O/o Deputy Director (AH/B), Sirmaur at Nahan, vice Mr. Rakesh Kumar, respondent No. 5. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner has been transferred twice in a three weeks. He states that though initially petitioner was transferred vide impugned order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) from afore station to O/o Deputy Director (AH/B), Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, but subsequently on making representation, thereby stating that his mother is suffering from cancer, his transfer was cancelled vide order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), but thereafter within 13 days again he was transferred to same station. 3. While making this Court peruse documents adduced on record, Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that since mother of the petitioner is suffering from breast cancer and at present she is under treatment in IGMC, Shimla, it may not be in the interest of justice to send petitioner to Nahan because in that situation, there would be none to take care of his ailing mother. 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 petitioner has been working in Shimla for more than ten years and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. He further states that petitioner herein has been transferred to Nahan, where one Medical 2 College with adequate facilities is available and as such, it cannot be said that on account of transfer of the petitioner, mother of the petitioner may suffer. 5. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already served in Shimla for more than ten years, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order, whereby he was transferred from Shimla to Nahan. However, having taken note of documents adduced on record suggestive of the fact that mother of the petitioner is under treatment in IGMC Shimla, 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 to the competent authority within a period of one week, thereby requesting competent authority to permit him to remain posted in Shimla for some time, enabling him to take care of his ailing mother, which shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days from the date of filing of such representation. Ordered accordingly. 6. 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 peculiar circumstances as well as Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an 3 employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 7. 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 application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. May 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4