IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10479of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.7.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vijay 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. Sunil Dutt Gautam, 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 Principal in GSSS Haripur District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved of order dated 24.6.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GSSS Tangnu District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, against vacancy. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to impugned transfer order on the ground that on account of adverse family circumstances, petitioner could not have been transferred to a far flung area, which is 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 at a distance of 400kms, especially when petitioner is due to retire within two years and six months. 2. 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 reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, who states that since it is not in dispute that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting and he belongs to State Cadre coupled with the fact that he has never served in hard area, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is more than 55 years of age, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within two days, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station on the ground that he is more than 55 years of age and as such, cannot be posted in hard area, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditious- ly, preferably, within ten days, taking note of the 16.1 of the transfer policy, which itself suggest that an employee having age of more than 55 years, cannot be posted in hard area. 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, petitioner 3 shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending ap- plication(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 1, 2025 manjit