IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9482 of 2025 Decided on: 6th June, 2025 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Ravinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.  Karam Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr.   Y.P.S Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. 2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter  is heard at this stage. 3. The   petitioner   feels   aggrieved   against   the impugned   office   order   dated   31.05.2025   (Annexure   P­3) whereunder   he   has   been   transferred   from   Government Middle School Khagal u/c Government Senior Secondary 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 School Matahni, District Hamirpur to Government Senior Secondary School Gumma, District Shimla vice respondent No.5. 4. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted that the petitioner has not completed normal period of three years at his present place of posting. The petitioner had joined at his present place of posting on 13.06.2023. To a query   of   the   Court,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner submitted that prior to petitioner’s posting at Government Middel School Khagal, he had served at Government Middle School Ghirtheri u/c  Government Senior Secondary School Boys,   Hamirpur   w.e.f.12.02.2021   to   12.06.2023   and distance between Ghirtheri and Khagal is less than 10 kms. Above being the position, it is quite obvious that the petitioner has remained posted within a distance of less than 10 kms w.e.f. 12.02.2021, I therefore, do not deem it a fit case for interference with the impugned order on the ground of short stay at present place. 5. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   further submitted   that   petitioner’s   father   is   suffering   from   60% locomotor   disability.   The   above   factor   would   make   it difficult for him to serve at the transferred station, which is at a distance of about 230 kms from petitioner’s present 3 place   of   posting.     The   case   file   does   not   reflect   any representation having been preferred by the petitioner to the employer on the said ground. At this stage, learned counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that   the   petitioner would   be   satisfied,   in   case,   he   is   permitted   to   make   a representation   to   the   employer   and   the   employer   be directed   to   decide   the   same.   It   is   always   open   for   an employee   to   seek   redressal   of   his/her   grievances,   in accordance   with   law   from   his   employer.   It   goes   without saying that in case, such representation is made by the petitioner,   the   same   shall   be   decided   by   the   employer expeditiously. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 06, 2025 Judge rohit