IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9937 of 2025 Date of Decision:20.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ram Swaroop …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Technical Assistant in Gram Panchayat Ghadyach, Baha & Dharmana, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Chief Executive Office and Block Development Office, Solan, H.P. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner was left with service less than 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 one year four months, he could not have been transferred in terms of transfer policy, which clearly provides that an employee nearing retirement shall not be transferred or if required, shall be adjusted at one of the stations of his choice. 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 and Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate. Learned counsel representing the respondents state that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned transfer order. 4. Since, it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is about to retire within one year four months, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee nearing retirement to seek transfer/adjustment at one of the stations of his choice, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file 3 representation to the competent authority within a period of two days, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week. 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 nearing retirement to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of two 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. 5. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 20,2025 (shankar)