IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9299 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh 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. Khem Raj, 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Veterinary Pharmacist at Veterinary Dispensary under Veterinary Hospital Kihar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Veterinary Dispensary Kumar, Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that respondents, while passing impugned transfer order, has failed to take note of the fact that petitioner is 60% hearing disabled in both ears and as such, in terms of Transfer Policy, he could not be transferred to far flung area. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, states that impugned transfer order has been passed on the representation filed by Mr. Om Parkash in terms of judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed in CWP No. 7915 of 2025, whereby directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is 60% hearing disabled from both ears and transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on account of his being physically disabled, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within four days for his adjustment at a convenient station, which shall be decided by the competent authority within one week from today. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the 2 petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of facts, as detailed in earlier part of the judgment as well as the object and intent of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3