2025:HHC:25164 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 9353/2025 Decided on: 30.7.2025 Virender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B. C. Verma, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Surinder Parkash Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) The petitioner herein, who is presently working as TGT (Non-Medical) in Government Senior Secondary School, Dandroo, District Hamirpur, is aggrieved of the order dated 31.5.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby he has been transferred to GSSS Gundah, u/c GSSS Bakras, Sirmaur. 2 The precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate, is that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of the transfer policy as the petitioner has not been 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 permitted to complete his normal tenure at the present place of posting. It is further averred at the behest of the petitioner that prior to the petitioner’s posting at GSSS Dandroo, he was transferred from GSSS Pairwin, Hamirpur to GSSS Dalgaon, Shimla vide order dated 8.5.2025 but within short span of 20 days, he has been again transferred to GSSS Gundah, which is in violation of the transfer policy. 3 Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record instructions imparted by Director of School Education, perusal whereof would reveal that the petitioner has remained posted within a radius of 30 kms for more than four years. If it is so, he cannot be permitted to state that the respondent-State has not permitted him to complete the normal tenure of posting. 4 Needless to say, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2734/2024, titled as Monika Katna vs. State of H.P., decided on 6.6.2025, has upheld clause 10 of the transfer policy of the State dated 10.7.2013, which provides for clubbing of period of previous stay in calculating the total period of stay of employee at a particular station. 5 Since the petitioner has worked for almost 5 years within the radius of 30 kms, no illegality can be said to have 3 been committed by the respondents while passing the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances, which came to be apprised to this Court during the proceedings of this case, the present petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed presentation to the competent authority within two days, seeking transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on account of adverse family circumstances, which shall be decided by the aforesaid authority within one week thereafter. Needless to say, the authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. 6 Till the time, the representation is not decided, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, but he shall stand relieved from the present place of posting and as a consequence thereof, the private respondent would start getting salary. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) 30.7.2025 Judge (pankaj)