IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10459 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Manish Kumar …….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. Sunny Dhatwalia, 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 JBT at Government Primary School Tihra, Block Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 28.06.2025, whereby he has been transferred to GPS Nain, Block Bhijhari, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh against vacancy without TTA/JT, in condonation of short stay and relaxation of ban on transfers. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, 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. He states that though petitioner has been working at present station for around two years three months, but he could not have been transferred till the time he completes his normal tenure of posting. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, who states that the petitioner has completed normal tenure at present place of posting as he remained posted in District Hamirpur in same block for more than eight years, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent while transferring the petitioner from the present place of posting to GPS Nain (Bijhari). 4. Though, petitioner has not completed three years at the present place of posting but he remained posted in the same block for more than eight years, as such no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while issuing impugned transfer order. 5. Though, learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that impugned transfer order deserves to be interfered being based on DO note, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Dhatwalia, for the reason that since petitioner has almost completed his normal tenure of posting, factum of issuance of DO note or that impugned transfer order has been issued on political interference is of no relevance. 6. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has completed his normal tenure i.e. three years at the present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within three days, praying therein for his 3 adjustment at a convenient station, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within ten days thereafter, taking note of the transfer policy which enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Till the time representation is decided, impugned order dated 28.06.2025 shall remain stayed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)