Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8832 of 2025 Date of decision: 02.07.2025 Ram Lal. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The present case pertains to a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 (who are Class-IV employees-Peon) serving in State Taxes & Excise Department (H.P.) with regard to their posting at the Multipurpose Barrier (‘MPB’), Swarghat, Bilaspur Circle, District Bilaspur. 2. Under impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) petitioner was transferred from MPB Swarghat, District Bilaspur to the office of Assistant -2- Commissioner (Excise), Bilaspur Circle, District Bilaspur vice respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner assailed the office order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) on the grounds that:- 3(i). He was posted at his present place of posting pursuant to the restructuring of the State Taxes and Excise Department in terms of office order dated 24.10.2024. Accordingly, his tenure at the current station is yet to be completed. 3(ii). Impugned transfer is based upon a DO Note issued at the instance of extraconstitutional authority. 3(iii). Petitioner, who is Class-IV employee, has been transferred to a place at the distance of 80 kms from his native place. In view of the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioner, vide interim order dated 27.05.2025, the operation of the impugned office order dated 21.05.2025 was stayed. 4. The stand of respondent No.4, as canvassed by learned Senior Counsel, is that the petitioner himself was a beneficiary of a D.O. Note and was posted at MPB Swarghat -3- in the year 2016 on the basis of the said note. Petitioner has already completed much more than his normal tenure at the present place. Petitioner’s assertion of having been transferred to a place at a distance of 80 kms was also refuted by submitting that the place of transfer is actually accessible to the petitioner by traversing a distance of 20 kms. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputed the said assertion. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 also highlighted that respondent No.4 was suffering from kidney problem and had been undergoing treatment for the same at hospital in Chandigarh. Learned Deputy Advocate General placed on record the service details of both the petitioner and respondent No.4. A perusal of the said service details reveals that the petitioner had earlier been the beneficiary of a DO Note dated 22.03.2016, pursuant to which he was transferred to his present place of posting. The service details further reflect that respondent No.4 has now been transferred to MPB Swarghat under the impugned order, which is also based upon a DO Note. -4- 5. From above, it comes out that the petitioner is serving at his present place of posting, i.e. MPB Swarghat, w.e.f. the year 2016. His posting at present place was on the basis of DO Note. He has completed almost 9 years at his present place. However, the petitioner’s allegation that the impugned order of bringing respondent No.4 to his place was issued only on the basis of a DO Note, without any application of independent mind by the Competent Authority, is also borne out not only from the record placed along with the rejoinder but also from the service details placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General. Taking note of all these facts as have come on record, this writ petition is though allowed and impugned office order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) transferring the private parties to specific places only on the basis of DO Note without application of independent mind by the Competent Authority, is quashed and set aside, however, the Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise, H.P./Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.4 afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view their incumbency position and the observations made hereinabove. Fresh order be passed -5- within three weeks, i.e. by 26.07.2025. The order(s) so passed be also communicated to petitioner and respondent No.4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 2nd July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)