IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9479 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Medical) at Govt. High School Kalkhar, U/c GSSS Sidhyani, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 31.5.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore school to GSSS Gwalpur, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy because petitioner has been not permitted to complete his normal tenure at present place of posting. He further states that petitioner was posted at Govt. High - 2 - School Kalkhar u/c GSSS Sidhyani, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, 25 days’ back vide transfer order dated 31.5.2025 (Annexure P-2), but with a view to adjust private respondent No.5, he has been again transferred to a school, which is at a distance of 150 kms., from his native place. 3. Since despite sufficient opportunity neither reply nor instructions were placed on record, this Court caused presence of Director of School Education. Director of School Education, who is present in the Court, states that petitioner has remained posted within the radius of 30kms from present place of posting for more than 10 years. He further stated that as per record made available to him, distance between present place of posting and transferred station is more than 31 kms. Officer present in the court further states that petitioner belongs to State Cadre and as such, he can be posted anywhere in the state as per requirement. 4. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by learned Additional Advocate General as well as officer present in the Court. 5. Though it has been claimed at the behest of the petitioner that he has been transferred at the distance of 150kms from his native place, but he was unable to dispute that for more than ten years, - 3 - petitioner has remained posted within the radius of 30 kms from present place of posting. Moreover, perusal of impugned transfer order suggests that petitioner has been transferred at the distance of 31kms from present place of posting. 6. While disputing contentions raised by the respondent- State that petitioner remained posted within the radius of 30kms for the last 10 years, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that prior to petitioner’s posting at present place of posting, he was posted in GSSS Smaila, which is at a distance of 31.4 kms. 7. Since it is quite apparent from the instructions given to this court by the Officer present in the Court that petitioner remained posted within the vicinity of 30kms from present place of posting for more than 10 years and distance between present place of posting and transferred station is only 31 kms, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note of the adverse family circumstances as came to be apprised to this Court during the proceedings of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation, expeditiously, preferably, within one week. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms - 4 - of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge