IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10311 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Parveen Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K.Suri, 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. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Medical) at GHS Jandaur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GSSS Nadal, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, vice Mr. Abhinash Rahalia, respondent No. 4. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev K.Suri, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law because same has been passed in violation of Transfer Policy. He states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but yet he has been sent to far flung area in District Chamba. He further states that impugned transfer has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by respondent No. 3, Mr. Surinder Singh Mankotia, who is a political activist of the Congress Party. 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 though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but he states that petitioner will complete three years in the month of August and it is also wrong to say on the part of learned counsel for the petitioner that GSSS Nadal, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh is a hard area, rather same is a soft area. He further state that since petitioner belongs to State cadre, he can be transferred anywhere in the State of Himachal Pradesh as per requirement. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan, states that though there is nothing to suggest that impugned transfer has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by person named hereinabove, but such fact may not 3 be of much relevance for the reason that petitioner has already completed normal tenure. 4. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to look into the ground raised by the petitioner with regard to DO note issued by some extra constitutional authority. Moreover, perusal of impugned transfer order nowhere suggests that same has been issued at the instance of the person named hereinabove. Similarly, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, that GSSS Nadal, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is not a hard area, rather same is a soft area. 5. In view of the above, 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 were brought to the notice of this Court during the proceedings of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner file representation to the competent authority within two days, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station, which shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days. Ordered accordingly. 6. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 4 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 account of 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)