IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8845 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Prem Swaroop …….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. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. 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 TGT (Arts) in Government High School, Thathwani, u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Parol, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School, Rey, Kangra, vice Mr. Satish Chand, who was under transfer from Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta, Hamipur to Government Senior Secondary School, Rey, Kangra. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since petitioner is left with only seven months service, he otherwise could not have been transferred from present place of posting to the transferred station, in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 terms of the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. While referring to Clause 4 of the note appended before the impugned transfer order, Mr. Rahi, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that no incumbent, who is on the verge of retirement, otherwise can be transferred. He states that since petitioner is left with only seven months of service, he otherwise cannot be transferred from the present place of posting, in terms of transfer policy. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar 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. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station, but once impugned transfer order itself provides that an employee, nearing retirement, shall not be disturbed, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly provides that person left with less than two years of service shall not be transferred and if required, shall be sent to a station of his/her choice, 3 this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed and impugned transfer order date 19.05.2025, qua the petitioner, who is figured at Sr. No.37, is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue at present place of posting till his retirement. 5. On account of aforesaid order passed by this Court, respondents may suitably adjust person namely Satish Chand i.e. private respondent No.4, who otherwise appears to have managed his transfer from Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta, Hamirpur to Government High School, Thathwai, under complex Government Senior Secondary School, Parol, Hamirpur. Afore person was initially transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta, Hamirpur to Government Senior Secondary School, Rey, Kangra, but somehow he manage to get himself posted at the place of petitioner, but once impugned transfer order itself provides that person nearing retirement shall not be disturbed, prayer made in the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 27, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)