( 2025:HHC:20037 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 311 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 __________________________________________________ Sh. Vikas Sharma ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Appellant: Mr. Anshuman Thakur and Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 18.06.2025 in CWP No. 9749 of 2024 titled Vikas Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the transfer order dated 04.09.2024 of the writ petitioner, who is Assistant Superintendent Jail, from District Jail, Hamirpur to Model Central Jail, Nahan. 2. The transfer order as such would also go on to show that it was made on administrative grounds in the public interest 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and smooth functioning of jail administration and in relaxation of ban on transfer. The learned Single Judge recorded the fact that the writ petitioner had already completed two years’ five months’ at the present place of posting and therefore found no reason to interfere with the transfer order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently tried to argue that on account of an Advisory issued on 24.08.2024, since a judicial inquiry had been conducted in the custodial death of an undertrial prisoner Deep Chand, the appellant as such had been transferred. We have also been referred to the stand taken by the State regarding the justification given as such. It is, in such circumstances, it is argued that the transfer order was punitive in nature. 4. Similarly, it is contended that as per the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manuals, the minimum tenure, as such, as provided to the non-gazetted staff, is five years. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592 and the judgment of Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 1833 of 2020 3 titled Shanti Swaroop vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 01.10.2020. 6. As noticed, in the present case, the order of transfer would go on to show that the petitioner is not the sole person, who has been transferred, but as many as five persons have been transferred working on the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail and therefore respondent/State has set a cycle in motion. The petitioner has been replaced by private respondent, who is working as Assistant Superintendent, District Jail, Dharamshala, and has now been posted in his place. 7. Apparently, one of the said persons, as such, has not been given the transfer allowance and the joining time, which had been made apparently on account of the fact that he had made request, however in case of other four persons, it is to complete the cycle as such and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that merely because an advisory so issued could not make it a punitive transfer. The petitioner solely has not been singled out for transfer and merely because an incident had occurred in the Jail earlier and inquiry as held and an advisory so issued, it is not possible for us to hold that the transfer is punitive in nature. 8. In the judgment relied upon by the appellant in 4 Somesh Tiwari Case (supra) the said petitioner was aggrieved against the order of the High Court which had quashed his transfer order but held that he was not entitled for the salary for the period commencing 15 days after the modified order of transfer was passed. In such circumstances, certain observations have flown that transfer orders are administrative orders and only liable to be interfered if there is malafide. 9. Similarly Shanti Swaroop case (supra) is a case where the transfer had taken place on the basis of UO notes and therefore Division Bench of this Court held that elected representatives were interfering in the administration or the working of the Executive and therefore quashed the transfer order, which is not the case herein. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it has been settled by the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 402, that the transfer orders are not liable to be interfered by way of judicial review until there is malafide, arbitrary action and violation of statutory rules. 11. We are of the considered opinion that merely because there is general principle, to be kept in mind, that the 5 Officers are not to be shifted before five years, does not give right to the petitioner to seek quashing of the transfer order as such because circulars and guidelines are only for the purpose of administrative policy. Once as noticed above the transfer is in administrative exigency of the large number of officials which has concerned with the running of jails, we are of the considered opinion that interference in the transfer order would not be justifiable, keeping in view the fact that even the writ petitioner is continuing from September, 2024 till now at the previous place of posting and therefore he has completed over two years’ of period of posting as recorded by the learned Single Judge. 12. Thus, there is no plausible reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and therefore the present appeal is dismissed in limine. Pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 24th June, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge