IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9711 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur and Mr. Ravneet Kumar, Advocates. 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, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at Government Senior Secondary School, Dalhousie, Chamba, is aggrieved of order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been transferred from afore School to Government Senior Secondary School, Bharara, Chamba, vice Mr. Vipin Kumar. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that within a short span of two months, petitioner has been transferred twice. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner while making this Court peruse impugned transfer order, states that once it is not in dispute that petitioner has already served in hard area i.e. Education 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Block Mehla, Chamba, he could not have been transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Bharara, Chamba, which falls under hard area, i.e. Education Block Churah. He states that impugned transfer order itself suggests that in case person has already served in hard area, he shall not be relieved. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma states that since petitioner has already completed more than four years in Government Senior Secondary School, Dalhousie, Chamba, present petition deserves dismissal. He further states that though vide transfer order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was transferred from afore School to Government Senior Secondary School, Devikothi, District Chamba, but such order was subsequently cancelled on 15.05.2025 and thereafter, petitioner again joined back at Government Senior Secondary School, Dalhousie, if it is so, it cannot be said that petitioner has been transferred twice, within a short span of two months. Mr. Verma further states that in terms of impugned transfer order, an incumbent, who has already served in sub-cadre area/hard/tribal/difficult area, shall not be relieved, pursuant to impugned transfer order, but there is nothing on record to suggest that prior to issuance of impugned transfer order, petitioner has already served in 3 hard area. He further states that representation, if filed by the petitioner, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station, on the ground that he has already served in hard area, shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for adjustment at a convenient station, within a period of one week, which in-turn, shall be decided by the afore authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days, taking note of Clause No.2, appended below the impugned transfer order, which clearly reveals that if the incumbent has already served sub-cadre/hard/tribal/difficult area, in that event, he/she may not be relieved again to areas ibid. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of Clause No.2 of impugned transfer order and Clause No.14.2 of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as taken note hereinabove. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided by the competent authority, operation of impugned transfer order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), shall remain stayed, qua the petitioner. 4 The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 17, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)