IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9733 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Mr. Rupesh Kumar & Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at Government High School Shantla under complex Government Senior Secondary School Pirsaluhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Chansu, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Parav Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law being passed in violation of Transfer Policy. He states that since petitioner has already served in hard/tribal area, he cannot be transferred to tribal area again. 3. Bare perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that petitioner was initially appointed as TGT (Non-Medical) and was posted at Government Senior Secondary School Baggi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which is a difficult/sub cadre area of the State. Since Clause 14.2 of the Transfer Policy itself provides that person, who has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/sub cadre area, shall not be transferred to hard/sub cadre area again, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered. 4. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is of the view that since at the 2 time of his initial appointment, petitioner was posted in sub cadre area, coupled with the fact that impugned transfer order itself suggests that in case incumbent has already served in hard/sub cadre, he/she shall not be relieved again so as to enable him/her to join a hard/tribal area again, impugned transfer order is not sustainable. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned transfer order is quashed qua petitioner and liberty is reserved to the respondents to transfer petitioner from present place of posting on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting to station other than a hard/tribal area, if required. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. June 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3