IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9809 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Jitender 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. Peeyush Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Medical Officer, is aggrieved of order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from CHC Gagal, District Mandi to Civil Hospital Kotli, District Mandi. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order has been issued in violation of the Transfer Policy because petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. As per averments contained in the petition, petitioner has been working in CHC Gagal, Mandi, H.P. for more than two years, whereas private-respondent namely Dr. Saveena Goel, who has been adjusted in place of the petitioner has been working within the radius of 50 kilometers for the last so many years. It is also alleged at the behest of petitioner that private-respondent was adjusted at the place of petitioner on the basis of D.O. note issued by political person. 4. This Court with a view to ascertain the correctness of afore submission made at the behest of petitioner specifically called upon Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to file an affidavit specifically indicating therein that “whether petitioner and respondent No.3 have been beneficiaries of D.O. note in the past or not?” 5. In compliance to aforesaid order, Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed affidavit during the proceedings of the case, which is taken on record. As per aforesaid affidavit, petitioner herein had procured a D.O. Note dated 26.08.2023 from the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister that he may be transferred in condonation of short stay without TTA/JT from PHC Jhungi, Block Bagsaid, District Mandi to CHC Gagal, Block Ratti, District Mandi against vacancy. Pursuant to aforesaid note, petitioner was posted at CHC Gagal two years back. Similarly, respondent 3 No.3-Dr. Saveena Goel has also been a recipient of D.O. Note. Respondent No.3 had procured D.O. Note dated 02.06.2017 for her transfer from CH Padhar, District Mandi to ZH Mandi vice Mr. Sonia Saroch and vice versa and orders to this effect were issued vide notification dated 21.07.2017. 6. It is clearly apparent from the aforesaid affidavit filed by Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh that both petitioner as well as private-respondent had been recipient of D.O. Note and they have remained posted in District Mandi. Petitioner herein besides his being posted in District Mandi has also served hard/tribal area. Though having taken note of the fact that private-respondent has been ordered to be transferred at the place of petitioner on the basis of D.O. Note, impugned transfer order needs to be interfered, however, during proceedings of the case, it came to be transpired that private-respondent is suffering from breast cancer and at present, she is under treatment from Medical College at Ner Chowk. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 for his adjustment at convenient station within a period of ten days, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent 4 authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. 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 the fact that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, who on account of issuance of D.O. Note in favour of private-respondent, has been transferred. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)