IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9306/2025 Decided on: 31.07.2025 Ramesh Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner is serving as Superintendent Grade-II in the respondent-Rural Development Department. His grievance is to the office order dated 24.05.2025, whereunder he has been transferred from Development Block Pachhad, District Sirmour to Development Block Rajgarh, District Sirmour vice respondent No.4. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Transfer has been assailed primarily on the ground that petitioner was transferred and posted as Senior Assistant at Development Block Patta, District Solan in September 2024. He was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. Consequent thereupon, he was transferred from Development Block Patta to Development Block Pachhad, District Sirmaur on 14.01.2025. He had, thus, completed about four months at Pachhad, when he was transferred under impugned order to Development Block Rajgarh, District Sirmaur. Considering petitioner’s short tenure at the Development Block Pachhad, District Sirmaur, vide order dated 05.06.2025 passed in this writ petition, the operation of impugned order was stayed. 3. Respondents have filed the reply. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 4. Apart from giving incumbency position of the petitioner and respondent No.4, the only explanation rendered for transferring the petitioner despite his short tenure at the present place, is receipt of an approved proposal from the competent authority to specifically transfer petitioner from Development Block Pachhad, to Development Block Rajgarh and to post respondent No.4 at petitioner’s place. Reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 makes it evident that the impugned transfer order has been issued mechanically by the respondents without applying independent mind. Admittedly, the 3 petitioner has short tenure at his present place of posting, therefore, the impugned transfer order deserves to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 31st July, 2025(rohit)