IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7303 of 2024 Date of Decision: 28.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dila Ram ……...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. Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms. Saroj, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar 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 Senior Assistant in Jal Shakti Vibhag, Division Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 19.7.2024, issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief Jal Shakti Vibhag, Shimla, whereby petitioner has been transferred from afore place to office of Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Head office Shimla vice Mr. Bhoop Ram. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted by the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but - 2 - challenge has been laid to the impugned transfer order on the ground that petitioner could not have been transferred to Shimla, which is at a distance of 130 kms coupled with the fact that petitioner is 60% permanently disabled. 3. Having taken note of fact of the disability of the petitioner, this court vide order dated 26.7.2024, stayed the operation of impugned transfer order, as a result thereof, he is still continuing on the same station. Respondents have filed reply whereby it has been stated that petitioner has remained posted at Jal Shakti Vibhag Division Rampur for more than two decades. 4. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that prior to issuance of impugned transfer order, petitioner was transferred from afore station to other stations on two occasions, but every time, taking note of the disability of the petitioner, he was accommodated in Rampur. He states that though factum with regard to disability of the petitioner is not disputed, but that cannot be sole ground for the petitioner to remain posted in Rampur. 5. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has remained mostly in Rampur, though this court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, but having taken note of the fact that petitioner is 60% permanently disabled, coupled with the fact that there is a provision in the transfer policy that an employee having disability shall not be transferred in a routine manner, rather an - 3 - attempt would be made to adjust him at a convenient station, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation within one week to the competent authority, praying therein for his transfer or adjustment at nearby station so that proper care is taken. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy. Till the time, representation, if any, filed within one week, is decided by the competent authority, interim order dated 26.7.2024, shall remain in force. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge