IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9359 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar Chadha ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Vinod Chauhan and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer Physics, at Government Senior Secondary School Paunta, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 31.5.2025, whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid school to Government Senior Secondary School Devdhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 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 has been issued by - 2 - the respondents with a view to adjust respondent No.5 Sanjeev Sharma, who prior to issuance of impugned transfer order dated 31.5.2025 stood transferred from Government Senior Secondary School Nalti, Bilaspur to GSSS Devdhar, Mandi, vide order dated 16.5.2025. 3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to petitioner’s having completed normal tenure at GSSS Paunta, Mandi, Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that since it is quite apparent from the averments adduced on record that petitioner has been transferred from present place of posting to accommodate the private respondent, impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that since petitioner had completed his normal tenure at GSSS Nalti, he though, at the first instance, was transferred to GSSS Devdhar, Mandi, but subsequently, on his representation dated 21.5.2025, he was transferred to GSSS Paunta Mandi, which is also at a distance of 60 kms from present place of posting. He submitted that petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have already completed normal tenure of posting and they have been ordered to be transferred vide impugned transfer order dated 31.5.2025, no prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the - 3 - petitioner by the adjustment of the respondent No.5 at GSSS Devdhar Mandi. 5. Though respondent-State has not filed reply, but Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, on instructions, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while ordering his transfer. He further submitted that mere posting of private respondent to GSSS Paunta Mandi, cannot be basis to infer that petitioner herein, who has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, has been transferred to GSSS Devdhar Mandi, with a view to adjust respondent No.5. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have completed normal tenure at their present place of posting and as such, department has transferred both of them from their present place of posting. 7. Though Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate, vehemently argued that impugned transfer of the petitioner from present place of posting to GSSS Devdhar Mandi has been effected at the behest of respondent No.5, but no cogent and convincing material has been adduced on record qua the same. Even otherwise, aforesaid ground, if found to be correct, may not be of much relevance as far as case of the petitioner - 4 - is concerned especially when he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note of the fact that petitioner is about to retire within two years, this court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient place, within three days, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days. Ordered accordingly. 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 the transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee nearing retirement to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim direction dated 5.6.2025 is hereby vacated. June 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge