IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10333/2025 Decided on: 28.06.2025 Vinod Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Nandita and Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J In view of the order being passed hereinafter, neither reply is required to be called from the appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.5. 2. Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. With the consent of learned counsel of the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The petitioner is serving as Senior Assistant in HPPWD 12th Circle Nahan. His grievance is to the office order dated 13.06.2025 that transferred him to HPPWD Division Shillai vice respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned transfer order has been issued on the basis of D.O. Note. That the petitioner has been transferred to a hard area, whereas he has already served in hard area in different spells for more than 10 years. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner under impugned order has been sent to hard area, whereas, in terms of applicable Transfer Policy, the petitioner could not be sent to hard area as he has already served in hard area for more than requisite tenure. To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that petitioner’s present place of posting is a soft area, where he has completed his normal tenure. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, he is permitted to make a representation to the respondents/competent authority for his suitable adjustment as the petitioner presently has been transferred to a hard area, whereas he has already served hard area, whereafter, respondents/competent authority be directed to consider and decide the representation, to be made by him, in 3 accordance with law, within time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 5. In view of above submissions and without interfering with the impugned transfer of respondent No.5, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to the respondents/competent authority within four days, seeking his suitable transfer/adjustment, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in terms of applicable Transfer Policy, within a further period of ten days. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station and he may avail the leave of kind due. In case the representation is not preferred by the petitioner within the indicated time-line, the protection made available to him under this order shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th June, 2025(rohit)