IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10267 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Yogesh Sharma …….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. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (Physical Education/DPE), in GUSSS, Kakira, Tehsil Chuwari, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GSSS, Hatli, District Chamba, vice Mr. Gargesh Kumar, respondent No.3. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law, because same has been issued in violation of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He states that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, specifically provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, but petitioner herein has been transferred from the present place of posting before the expiry of three years. He further states that transfer of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner has been effected on the basis of D.O. note issued by some extra-constitutional authority. He further states that impugned transfer order is also not sustainable in the eye of law because same has been issued during the ban period, that too without obtaining the approval of competent authority. 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. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while transferring him from the present place of posting. He further states that there is nothing on record to suggest that impugned transfer order has been passed on the basis of D.O. note issued by some extra-constitutional authority. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition which is duly supported by way of an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner herein has been working at the present place of posting since October 2022, meaning thereby that he has already completed two and a half year at the present place of posting. Similarly, this Court finds that no mention of the person, who allegedly issued D.O. note, thereby recommending transfer of the petitioner and bare perusal of the impugned transfer order otherwise nowhere indicates that same has been issued on the basis of some D.O. note. It has been categorically mentioned in the impugned transfer order 3 that same has been issued with the prior approval of the competent authority in relaxation of ban on transfers and as such, it cannot be said that impugned transfer order has been wrongly issued during the ban period. 5. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact that daughter of the petitioner is studying in Class 10+2 and she has to appear for board examination in the coming months, coupled with the fact that mother of the petitioner is bed-ridden, this Court deems if fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of two days, praying therein for cancellation of transfer order/adjustment at a convenient station, on the ground of adverse family circumstances, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days, taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek cancellation of transfer order/adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances. Ordered accordingly. 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. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of two days is not decided by the competent authority, in terms of 4 instant judgment, petitioner herein shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)