2025:HHC:18133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9459 of 2025 Date of Decision: June 6, 2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Avinash Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Nemo for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is working as a TGT (M) at GSSS Lower Hareta, District Hamirpur is aggrieved by order dated 3.6.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid station to GMSSS Mamligh, Solan, vice respondent No. 3-Ajay Kumar. 2. Precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that transfer of petitioner is in violation of CGP-2013, because the petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at Lower Hareta. Mr. Chandel, states that prior to posting at present place, petitioner has already served sub-cadre area, as such, it has been wrongly mentioned in transfer order that he has completed normal tenure of posting, by clubbing his previous stay. Mr. Chandel, further states that otherwise also, on account of adverse family 2025:HHC:18133 circumstances of petitioner, he could not have been transferred to a far flung area, which is 350 kms from Lower Hareta. 3. Having regard to the prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed thereupon, requirement of filing reply on behalf of official respondents and notice to respondent No. 3 is dispensed with. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 states that the petitioner has been working at present place since September 2022, as such, it cannot be said that he has not completed his normal tenure of posting. Mr. Kahol fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, for his adjustment, in view of adverse family circumstances shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that the petitioner has completed two years and nine months at present place, as such, it cannot be said that he has not completed normal tenure there,. Though, prior to posting at present place, petitioner was posted in a sub-cadre area and before that, he remained posted in Hamirpur, therefore, this Court sees no occasion to interfere with the transfer of the petitioner. Similarly, this Court, taking note of the fact that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place, sees no occasion to look into ground of DO Note raised by petitioner. 5. Otherwise, this Court in Pradeep Kumar Rathore v. State of HP, CWP No. 2686 of 2020, decided on 28.9.2020, has held that when an employee has completed normal tenure, he is liable to be transferred and it is prerogative of State to transfer an employee at any station. Aforesaid judgment has attained 2 2025:HHC:18133 finality. Similar view has been taken in Shabnam v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 2624 of 2020, decided on 18.9.2020 6. However, having taken note of the adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, apprised by learned counsel for the petitioner during proceedings of case, present petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for his adjustment at a suitable place, within two days, which in turn shall be considered and decided by said authority within a week, thereafter, taking note of CGP-2013 as also adverse family circumstances of petitioner. 7. Till the time, representation, if filed within two days, is decided by competent authority, petitioner shall not be relieved from his present place of posting. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 6, 2025 Vikrant) 3