IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8933 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev 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. K.B.Khajuria, 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 TGT (NM) at GHS Frokta, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Bathri, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GMS Lothal u/c GHS Choori, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. K.B.Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner has already served in a hard area, but yet vide impugned transfer order, he has been again transferred to hard area, which is not permissible under the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He further states that otherwise also, petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, he could not have been transferred. Though at first instance petitioner filed representation to the Principal school concerned, thereby intimating that he had already served in a hard area and as such, he should not be transferred again to hard area, but since nothing was done, he was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. 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, fairly states that taking note of representation filed by the petitioner, petitioner has not been relieved till date as has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that though petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but having taken note of fact that he has already served in a hard area, representation filed by him shall be decided expeditiously. 3. 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 to the competent authority within one week, praying therein for cancellation 2 of his transfer or adjustment at a convenient station, which shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take note of provision contained in Transfer Policy and pass appropriate orders. Till the disposal of representation, if any, impugned transfer order qua petitioner shall remain stayed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3