IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10243 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Director of Women and Child Development and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. s 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 2.6.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to the office of Child Development Officer, Sujanpur District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Though it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but challenge has been made to the impugned transfer order on the ground that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of political interference. Though it is averred in the petition that transfer has been effected on the basis of DO note issued by ex-MLA of the area concerned, but neither number of DO note nor copy of the same DO - 2 - note has been placed on record. Leaving everything aside, this Court having carefully perused impugned transfer order is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who waives notice on behalf of the respondents, that there is no whisper, if any, of DO note, rather same appears to have been passed in public interest on the basis of requirement. This Court finds that petitioner has already worked in Kangra for more than five years and he has been posted/transferred to Sujanpur, which is at a distance of 50- 60kms. 3. For the reasons stated in the petition, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and accordingly, same are upheld, however, having taken note of the adverse family circumstances as came to be apprised to this Court during the proceedings of the case coupled with the pending representation having been filed by the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation, expeditiously, preferably, within 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 a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on the ground of adverse - 3 - family circumstances. Till the time representation is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge