IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9985 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Kali Ram …….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. Rishi Tandon, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as a Driver, in the office of General Manager, District Industries Center, Solan, is aggrieved of order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to the office of General Manager, District Industries Center, Nahan. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rishi Tandon, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since petitioner has not completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, impugned transfer order, being passed in violation of Transfer Policy, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. He states that though petitioner 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 has been working at Solan since year 2019, but he was working working on daily wage basis till year 2023, when his services were regularized and as such, his normal tenure of posting, being a regular employee, cannot be said to have been completed at Solan. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station. He states that since it is not in dispute that petitioner has been working in Solan since year 2019, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while issuing transfer order. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis in the year 2019 and thereafter, he was given posting in the office of General Manager, District Industries Center, Solan. True it is that services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2023, but it is not in dispute that he has been working at afore station since year 2019. Though Mr. Rishi Tandon, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, does not apply to daily wage employees, but this 3 Court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submission of Mr. Rishi Tandon, learned counsel representing the petitioner, for the reason that be it in regular capacity or daily wage capacity, petitioner has been working in the Department, controlled and managed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, if the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is perused in its entirety, it nowhere suggests distinction between employees working on daily wage basis or regular basis. For the reasons stated hereinabove, though this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 5. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, another ground raised by the petitioner that his transfer has been effected on the basis of D.O. note is of no consequence. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, as came to be apprised to this Court during proceedings of the case, 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, praying therein for cancellation of transfer order or adjustment at a convenient station, within a period of three days, which in-turn, shall be decided by the afore authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 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 4 thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek posting at a convenient station, on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time, representation, if filed within a period of three days, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)