IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9135 of 2025 Date of Decision:02.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dalip Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Beldar on regular basis in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Jal Shakti Sub Division, Kaffota, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 27.05.2025, whereby he has been relieved from his duty from the present place of posting with a further direction to give report for his duty in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Jal Shakti Sub Division Ronhat, Division Shillai, Section Panog on LWSS Sui Dhar with immediate effect against vacancy in the public interest. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, it has been fairly admitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been relieved from the present place of posting on the ground that taking note of the fact that petitioner is due to retire on July, 2026, petitioner could not have been transferred to far flung area, rather ought to have been given station of his choice in terms of Clause 5.5 of transfer policy. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while issuing impugned transfer order. There is no dispute with regard to petitioner having completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once it is not in dispute that transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on account of his/her nearing retirement, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 3 4. 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 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation(Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 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 appropriate order, taking note of Clause 5.5. of transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek adjustment at a convenient station on account of his /her nearing retirement age. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 02,2025 (shankar)