IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9385 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Parkash Chand …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who is a Class-IV employee i.e. Porter and at present is under transfer to Regional Workshop, HRTC, Mandi, is aggrieved of impugned orders dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) and 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby competent authority while disposing of the representation filed by him in terms of order dated 27.03.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.4427 of 2025, has transferred him to Regional Workshop, HRTC, Mandi. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that vide order dated 22.03.2025, petitioner herein came to be transferred from Head Office, HRTC, Headquarter, Shimla to the office of Regional Manager, Chamba Unit, HRTC, Himachal Pradesh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid transfer order, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.4427 of 2025, titled Parkash Chand Vs. HRTC and Another. In afore case, it came to be transpired 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that petitioner has been transferred from Shimla to Chamba on the basis of complaint. Though having taken note of the transfer on the basis of complaint, this Court while passing order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P- 2) observed that transfer order, being punitive, is not sustainable, especially when there is nothing to suggest that before passing such order, disciplinary proceedings, if any, were ever initiated, but yet, restrained itself from quashing impugned transfer order and reserved liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority, with the direction to decide the same expeditiously. In terms of aforesaid order, petitioner though submitted representation, praying therein for his adjustment at the stations, given in the representation, but vide impugned order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), Managing Director, while disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner, again transferred him from Chamba to Mandi. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since petitioner is a Class-IV employee, he could not have been transferred to far-flung area i.e. Mandi, which is at a distance of 150 kilometers from Shimla. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that though two posts of Porter are lying vacant in Solan, but yet for no cogent reasons, petitioner is being denied posting in afore station. 3 4. Having taken note of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel representing the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 05.06.2025, called upon Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondents to have instructions, whether petitioner can be transferred to District Solan or not. Pursuant to afore order, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondents made available communication dated 13.06.2025, issued under the signatures of Executive Director, HRTC, Shimla, perusal whereof reveals that though one post of Porter is vacant in Solan Unit, but since afore area falls under the jurisdiction of Divisional Workshop, Taradevi, petitioner cannot be posted at afore station. 5. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner is an employee of respondent-HRTC and Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, who has passed the impugned order is overall Incharge of HRTC, petitioner could not have been denied posting in District Solan, on the pretext that area falls under the jurisdiction of Divisional Workshop, Taradevi. Since it is quite apparent from the record, rather, stand duly admitted by the respondents that petitioner herein has been transferred from Headquarter Shimla to Chamba and thereafter to Mandi, on the basis of complaint made by some fellow employee, it was incumbent upon the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings before passing impugned transfer order. 4 6. Since transfer is on the basis of complaint, coupled with the fact that no disciplinary proceedings ever took place prior to passing of impugned orders, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner has been condemned unheard. In afore circumstances, transfer order, being punitive in nature, is not sustainable. Though, this Court while passing order dated 27.03.2025 in CWP No.4427 of 2025, ought to have quashed and set-aside the impugned transfer order dated 22.03.2025, passed by Divisional Manager (Headquarter), HRTC, Shimla, whereby petitioner was transferred from Shimla to Chamba, but at that stage, Court reserved liberty to the department to rectify its mistake, but it appears that department is hell-bent in sending the petitioner to far-flung area. 7. Though, it is the sole prerogative of an employer to transfer its employee, but while doing so, it is expected to take note of the status of employee. Once it is not in dispute that petitioner is working as a Porter, he is not expected to be sent to a far-flung area i.e. Chamba and Mandi, rather, in given facts and circumstances, he ought to have been given posting at a nearby station. Once one post of Porter is lying vacant at Solan, as has been fairly admitted by the respondents vide communication dated 13.06.2025, as taken note hereinabove, respondents would have transferred petitioner to afore station. Since despite there being opportunity afforded to respondents to rectify their 5 mistake, they have failed to do so, this Court has no option, but to allow the present petition. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) and 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) are quashed & set-aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for posting him either in Solan or in any nearby station, in and around Shimla, but definitely not at Headquarter Office, Shimla. Since petitioner is in limbo for considerable time, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant order shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three days. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 18, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)