IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8395 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Since it is quite apparent from the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that petitioner has never served in the hard area prior to passing of the impugned transfer order, there appears to be no justification for this Court to entertain the present petition. 2. Though, at this stage, Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner while placing on record notification dated 03.10.2016, issued under the signatures of Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, attempted to contend that Patwar Circle Charana of Tehsil Nohradhar and Patwar Circles; Khala Kyar, Bhatgarh, Koti Dhiman and Jarag of Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmaur, fall in “hard area”. He states that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 since petitioner has already served in aforesaid Education Block, respondents are not right in contending that petitioner has not served in the hard area. However, this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner for the reason that notification dated 03.10.2016, whereby afore Patwar Circle came to be notified as hard area, came into force w.e.f. 03.10.2016, whereas petitioner remained posted in aforesaid area prior to 03.10.2016, meaning thereby, when the petitioner was serving in aforesaid area, same was not notified as hard area. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority seeking therein cancellation of transfer or adjustment at some suitable place on account of the fact that he has less than two years to retire. Representation, if any, shall be filed within a period of one week, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week thereafter. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall take note of provisions contained in the transfer policy, which admittedly provides that employee, who is about to retire within a period of two years, is not to be transferred or to be provided station of his choice. Till the 3 time representation, if filed within one week in terms of instant order, is not decided by the competent authority, interim order dated 20.08.2024 shall remain in force. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)