IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10497 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Pankaj 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 Petitioners: Mr. Khem Raj and Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocates. 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 is aggrieved of order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7037 of 2025, whereby having taken note of disability of the petitioner, this Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach competent authority for cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station. 2. Careful perusal order impugned in the instant proceedings clearly reveals that respondents after having considered the representation of the petitioner in light of observations made in the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7037 of 2025 as well as principled guidelines, as enshrined in the Transfer Policy, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner herein has 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 been given convenient station, which is not only connected to the road, but distance of hospital from afore station is not more than 12-13 kilometers. Besides above, it has further been observed in the order laid challenge in the instant proceedings that Government Primary School, Ghirther (Rait) is connected to various stations by road and on all those stations, Civil Hospitals are also available, where in the event of emergency, petitioner can take treatment. Most importantly, reliance has been placed upon Para 5(3) of Office Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 i.e. Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, for regulating the transfer of State Government employees. Afore Para relates to concession to handicapped employees, especially to officers/officials with 60% and above physical disability. Though in the instant case, petitioner is having disability to the extent of 50%, but concession, as provided in Para 5(3), detailed hereinabove, has been provided to the petitioner. 3. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds no infirmity and illegality in the impugned rejection order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) and as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)