IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9773 of 2025 Date of Decision:18.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Singh Rana …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Pharmacy Officer at Civil Hospital, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of transfer order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to PHC Domehar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Though, it has been fairly admitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but impugned transfer order has been laid challenge on the ground that same has been passed with a view to accommodate the private respondent that too on the basis of D.O. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Note issued by MLA, Dharampur. Besides above, it is also averred in the petition that petitioner has undergone major surgery at PGI, Chandigarh on account of his having suffered a major accident and as such, it may not be possible for him to join at transferred station, as there would be none to take care of him. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Learned Deputy Advocate General states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that no cogent material has been adduced on record to demonstrate that impugned transfer order has been issued on the basis of D.O. Note issued by MLA of the area concerned, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order, which has been otherwise passed strictly in terms of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that impugned transfer order nowhere suggests that the same has been issued on the basis of D.O. Note issued by MLA concerned, this Court sees no reason to interfere in 3 the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has undergone major surgery on account of his having suffered a major accident, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of three days, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of 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 appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of three days, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 18,2025 (shankar)