1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9630 of 2025 Date of decision: 31.07.2025 Tarjeev Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Aafreen Kaushal, Advocates. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner, presently serving as Assistant Public Relations Officer at Anni, District Kullu, is aggrieved by office order dated 06.06.2025, whereby he has been transferred to Palampur, District Kangra. 2. The aforesaid transfer order has been assailed on the following grounds:- 2(i). The petitioner has a short tenure of only 1 year and 8 months at the present place of posting. 2(ii). His wife is serving as Lecturer (Physics) at GSSS Chowai Anni, District Kullu and being a couple case, petitioner deserves concession of Clause 5.4 of the transfer -2- policy that provides for making endeavour for providing convenient postings to couples serving in the State. 2(iii). Petitioner’s wife is suffering from psychiatric problems. 3. On the basis of the grounds urged in the writ petition, operation of the impugned transfer order was stayed on 11.06.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner continued to serve at Anni. 4. Respondents have filed reply. The reply gives following incumbency of the petitioner:- Name of office Period of posting/stay APRO Office, Anni 27.07.2019 to 20.02.2023 (About 3 year & 6 months) DPRO Office, Shimla 21.02.2023 to 28.06.2023 (About 4 months) APRO Office, Anni 29.06.2023 to till date (About 2 years) The above incumbency position shows that the petitioner has rendered only about four months of service away from Anni during his total service tenure of six years, his remaining service tenure has been at Anni, which incidentally is his native place. In view of the admitted -3- incumbency position, plea of short tenure raised by the petitioner fails. Respondents have also pleaded that 18 posts out of 34 sanctioned post of Assistant Public Relation Officers are lying vacant. Five such posts exist in district Kangra. It is in view of the administrative requirement of the Department that impugned office order was issued on 06.06.2025 transferring the petitioner at APRO Palampur, District Kangra The respondents have clearly made out a case of petitioner’s transfer having been effected in view of administrative exigency being faced by the Department. Insofar as the petitioner’s grievance about his having not been given concession of Clause 5.4 of the transfer policy is concerned, suffice to note that he has been accommodated on the aforesaid ground for 6 years at one station. The petitioner does not have any vested or absolute right to seek the benefit of Clause 5.4 throughout his service career. The Competent Authority is entitled to consider administrative exigencies while issuing transfer orders and managing postings. 5. Keeping all facts into consideration, no case is made out for interference with the impugned transfer order. -4- Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, open for the petitioner’s wife to seek her transfer in view of petitioner’s transfer at Palampur. In case such representation is so made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the Competent Authority expeditiously. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 31st July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)