2025:HHC:18129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9521 of 2025 Date of Decision: June 6, 2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Madho Prasad ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocates. 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is working as Lecturer (SN) Political Science at GSSS Saach (Pangi) is aggrieved by order dated 3.6.2025, whereby he has been transferred from said station to GSSS Bagthan, Sirmaur, which is claimed to be 550 kms from Saach, has preferred the present petition for quashing of aforesaid order and to give him posting at a station of his choice. 2. Precise grouse of petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is serving in tribal/hard area for quite long, he could not have been transferred to GSSS Bagthan, Sirmaur, without his consent. While referring to the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, Mr. Jairath states that as per said principles, an employee after serving in hard/tribal area for normal 2025:HHC:18129 tenure of two winters and three winters is entitled to be transferred to a soft area or at a station of his choice, however, in the instant case, respondents without obtaining consent of petitioner, transferred him to Bagthan, Sirmaur, which is a rural area. Mr. Jairath, on instructions states that though he is not opposed to transfer from present place of posting, but he is required to be given a station of his choice, in terms of CGP. 3. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent State fairly admits the factum of petitioner having served tribal area for more than normal tenure. He states that the petitioner is required to be given posting at a soft area/station of choice, and as such petitioner may be directed to file representation, which shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record as well as documents annexed thereto, that the petitioner is working in Saach (Pangi) since 2015 coupled with the fact that there is a provision in the Principles/Transfer Policy for adjustment/transfer of an employee at a soft area/station of choice, after completing normal tenure there, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2, within a week, praying for his adjustment/transfer at station of his choice, which in turn shall be decided by said respondent within a week thereafter. Till the time representation, if filed within a week from today, is decided by respondent No.2, impugned transfer order dated 3.6.2025 (Annexure P-1), qua the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. 2 2025:HHC:18129 5. Needless to say, authority concerned shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order, taking note of provisions of Comprehensive Guiding Principles. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach competent court of law, in case, he still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 6, 2025 Vikrant) 3