IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9869 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Thakur Dass …….Petitioner Versus Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Limited … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Manager Grade-III, is aggrieved of order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from Branch Office Kullu to Branch Office Sissu. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner has already served in a hard area i.e. Keylong, for more than four years, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondent-Bank to again transfer him to a hard/tribal area i.e. Sissu. While making this Court peruse relieving order (Annexure P-2), learned counsel for the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner submitted that prior to his being posted at Kullu, he had already remained posted at Branch Office, Keylong. 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 respondent, who is otherwise represented by Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate. Learned counsel representing the respondent- Bank fairly states that in terms of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been adopted by the respondent-Bank, an employee, who has already served in a heard area cannot be transferred to a hard area again. However, in the instant case, since the petitioner belongs to that area only, he has been transferred there purposely with a view to accommodate him. 4. Since, it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that petitioner belongs to Kullu and in past has already served in a hard area, i.e. Keylong, there appears to be reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order because same is in violation of transfer policy. Transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been further adopted by the respondent-Bank, clearly provides that an employee, who has already served in a hard/tribal area shall be given posting at one of the stations of his choice. However, in the instant case, petitioner has been again sent to tribal area. 3 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned transfer order dated 12.06.2025(Annexure P-1) is quashed and set-aside, with liberty reserved to the respondent-Bank to pass appropriate order, thereby transferring the petitioner from present place of posting, if required, to a station in soft area. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19,2025 (shankar)