Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18028 (HP)

JEET SINGH v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/10069/2025 · 2025-06-24

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10069 of 2025 Date of Decision:24.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jeet Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amar Dev Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Veterinary Pharmacist in Veterinary Dispensary, Siyur, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Veterinary Dispensary, Kathal, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh vice Sh. Virender Singh. 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 had already worked in hard/tribal area for more than four years, there was no occasion, if 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 any, to transfer him to a station, which is at a distance of 150 KM, rather in terms of transfer policy, he ought to have been given station of his choice on account of the fact that he has already served in hard/tribal area for more than four years. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that petitioner has been not again transferred to hard area, rather to soft area and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned order. 4. Once, it is not in dispute that prior to petitioner’s transfer through impugned transfer order, he was working in tribal area for more than four years, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner ought to have been transferred to one of the stations of his choice. However, in the instant case, petitioner though has been not sent to hard/tribal area, but certainly station given to him is at a distance of 150 Km from the present place of posting. Transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly provides that an employee after his/her having served in hard/tribal area, shall be entitled to be transferred to 3 one of the stations of his choice, however such procedure has been not made available in the case of the petitioner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 within a period of three days, paying therein for his adjustment a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent 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 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 to seek transfer/adjustment to one of the stations of his/her choice after his/her having served hard/tribal area for two winters and three summers. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of three 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. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24,2025 (shankar)