IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8989 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jia Lal ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Chowkidar, is aggrieved of order dated 21.5.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been transferred from Nerwa Unit to Kupvi. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order, thereby transferring the petitioner from Chopal to Kupvi has been passed in violation of transfer policy because clause 5.5 of same, clearly reveals that an employee nearing retirement cannot be transferred to a far flung area, rather is required to be given station of his/her choice. 3. 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 Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. Ms. Dhiman, states that order dated - 2 - 21.5.2025 has been passed on the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 8.5.2025, passed by this court in CWP No. 7601 of 2025. She states that no illegality can be said to have been committed while passing impugned order. 4. Prior to filing of the petition at hand, petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7601 of 2025, laying therein challenge to order dated 30.4.2025, whereby he was transferred to Sawra, this court disposed of the aforesaid petition with direction to the respondents to decide his representation for withdrawal of his deployment order. Though in terms of aforesaid order, respondents considered the representation filed by the petitioner vide order dated 21.5.2025, but transferred him to Kupvi, which is claimed to be at a distance of 45 kms from present place of posting. 5. Having taken note of order dated 21.5.2025 (Annexure P- 4) passed on the representation made by the petitioner, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been purposely sent to far flung area of Kupvi. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while transferring him from present place of posting, but taking note of clause 5.5 of the transfer policy, which enables a govt. employee to seek transfer/adjustment at - 3 - a station of his/her choice on account of nearing retirement, this Court while not interfering with the impugned transfer of the petitioner, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) afresh taking note of clause 5.5 of the transfer policy, expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. 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 transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as detailed herein above. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 31, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge