IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10483 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.7.2025 _______________________________________________________ Naveen Kumar Sharma …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer Chemistry at Government Senior Secondary School Trifalghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of transfer order dated 3.6.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GSSS Makreri, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has remained posted within 30km from the present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to the transfer order on the ground that wife of the petitioner is also working as Patwari and as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 such, transfer order, if any, could have been passed, thereby transfer- ring the petitioner to a station near to the station of posting of his wife. Besides above, it is also averred that brother of the petitioner is not mentally stable and is under treatment, there is none to take care of him. 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 since petitioner has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been com- mitted by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has been transferred within the radius of 30km from the present place of posting for more than two years, there appears to be no justification to inter- fere in the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that wife of the petitioner is also working as Patwrai at Patwar Circle Nauni, Trifalghat, coupled with the fact that transfer policy enables and employee to seek transfer to a convenient station on the ground of couple case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition at this stage reserving liberty to the petitioner to file represen- tation within two days, seeking therein his adjustment at a convenient 3 station, which in turn shall be decided expeditiously, preferably, within 10 days, taking note of the transfer policy which enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of couple case. 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 peti- tioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Needless to say, till the time representation is decided, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, shall al- so stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 1, 2025 manjit