IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9749 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sunil 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. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. 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 (Non- Medical) at Government Girls Senior Secondary School Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 4.6.2025, whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid school to Government Senior Secondary School Dofda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law as same has been passed in violation of transfer policy. He states that since petitioner was - 2 - transferred to present place of posting nine months back that too on mutual basis and as such, he could not have been transferred from present place of posting to Government Senior Secondary School Dofda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh before completion of normal tenure of three years at present place of posting. Mr. Jairath states that once it is not in dispute that petitioner was posted at Bilaspur on his representation, there was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to transfer him again within a short span of nine months. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that though petitioner was transferred to present place of posting nine months back, but careful perusal of material adduced on record by the petitioner itself suggests that prior to his posting at present place of posting, he remained posted within the radius of 30kms from the present place of posting and as such, he cannot be permitted to claim that he has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting. He submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 6.6.2025 passed in CWP No. 2734 of 2024, titled as Monika Katna v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. has already held that clubbing is permissible. If it is so, no - 3 - illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner remained posted within the radius of 30 kms for a considerable time, this court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submissions of Mr. Jairath, however, having taken note of the adverse family circumstance as was apprised to this court, during proceedings of the case, this court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation within two days, praying therein for cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient place, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days. 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 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. Till the disposal of the representation, impugned transfer order, qua the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge