1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8976 of 2025 Date of decision: 02.06.2025 Surinder Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order was passed in the matter on 29.05.2025:- “Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved against his transfer under the impugned office order 27.05.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been given any TTA/JT under the impugned transfer. Since none else has been posted in place of the petitioner, therefore, apparently transfer has been ordered on the assumption that the petitioner had made request for his transfer but the facts are otherwise. Petitioner has not made any request for his transfer. 2. Let learned Assistant Advocate General to ascertain the facts as to whether the transfer has been made on the request of the petitioner. 3. List on 02.06.2025. -2- 4. Till the next date of hearing, operation of impugned office order dated 27.05.2025 shall remain stayed.” 3. Pursuant to above, learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 31.05.2025 from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), Himachal Pradesh. As per the office instructions, there was no request of the petitioner for his transfer in the office record; The impugned transfer order was issued by respondent No.3-Chief Conservator of Forests, Chamba, on the basis of a U.O. Note issued from the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister, which in turn was based upon a proposal of petitioner’s transfer made by an Ex-Member Legislative Assembly. The office instructions along with relevant documents are taken on record. 4. The petitioner had not made any request for his transfer. Admittedly, he has been transferred only on the basis of U.O. Note. The transfer has only been made on the basis of U.O. Note without any independent application of mind by the employer. Hence, in view of settled legal position, the impugned transfer order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Respondents are, however, at liberty to consider the case of -3- the petitioner for transfer, if any, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 2nd June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)