1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9860 of 2025 Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Sushil Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Sharma & Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order passed in the matter on 19.06.2025 staying the operation of impugned office order dated 16.06.2025, notices the gist of the petitioner’s case:- “Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. Issue notice to respondent No.5, returnable for 03.07.2025, on taking steps within two days. In addition to ordinary process, dasti notice be also issued for service of respondent No.5 on usual terms. 2. Petitioner is serving as Superintendent Grade- II. His grievance is to the office order dated 16.06.2025 that transfers him from Tehsil Office Baldwara, District Mandi to Tehsil Office Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. vice respondent No.5. -2- 3. The matter was taken up in the forenoon session. A contention was raised that the impugned office order has presumably been issued on the basis of a DO note at the instance of respondent No.5 in view of the endorsement No.3 of the office order. Thereafter, learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to have instructions as to whether the same had been issued only on the basis of a D.O. note. When the matter was taken up next in the afternoon session, learned Deputy Advocate General apprised that the impugned office order qua petitioner and respondent No.5 had been issued on the basis of a D.O. note. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting. 4. In view of above submissions, operation of office order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) shall remain stayed qua the petitioner and respondent No.5. Reply by the appearing respondents be filed before the next date. List on 03.07.2025.” 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed their reply. Reply gives the incumbency position of the petitioner, which reflects that petitioner has served as Clerk for 9 years each in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and SDO (Civil), Ghumarwin. He also served as Senior Assistant for about a year in the Sub Tehsil Bharari, District Bilaspur and seven years in the Tehsil Office Ghumarwin. Petitioner was posted at the present place as Superintendent Grade-II at Tehsil Office Baldwara, District Mandi on 02.05.2023. He had just about completed 2 years of posting at the present place, when he was transferred under the impugned order to -3- Tehsil Office Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, vice respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 stands served, however, has chosen not to contest the petition. He has been proceeded against ex parte. Respondents have not disputed petitioner’s contention of impugned transfer having been effected on the basis of DO note and petitioner’s stay of about two years at the present place. 3. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned transfer order dated 16.06.2025 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and respondent No.5. Respondents shall be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer afresh in accordance with law and as per appliable transfer policy. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 24th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)