IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10295 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surender Singh Chauhan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant in the office of BEEO Dadasiba, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to the office of BEEO Ronhat, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Arun Kaushal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He states that since 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that he has transferred to a hard area. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents-State, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting. He states that petitioner will complete his normal tenure in the month of September, but record reveals that prior to his posting, he remained posted within a radius of 30Kms of afore station for so many years. He states that since petitioner belongs to State Cadre, he can be sent to any part of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has remained posted in District Kangra for several years, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances of the petitioner as have been apprised to this Court during proceedings of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and 3 decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) within ten days. Ordered accordingly. 5. 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 taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on adverse family circumstances. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 27, 2025 (Sunil)