IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9861 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lachhman Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. 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, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Shastri at GMS Makkan under complex GSSS Jhajjakothi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GMS Andwas under complex GSSS Lahara. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. K.B.Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 since he has already served in a hard area, there was no occasion for the respondents to transfer him to another hard area, rather he ought to have been given station of his choice in terms of Transfer Policy. 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 since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. However, Mr. Verma was unable to dispute that petitioner has been transferred to hard area again and as such, he is required to be given posting of his choice. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of fact that petitioner has already served in a hard area and vide impugned transfer order, he has been again transferred to hard area, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner file representation to the competent authority within two days, praying therein for his transfer to one of the stations of his 3 choice in terms of Transfer Policy, which 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee, who has already served in a hard area, to seek transfer to one of the stations of his choice. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be relieved, if not already relieved from present place of posting. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 (Sunil)