IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10565 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kishori Lal …….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. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (SN) (History) at GSSS, Trifalghat, Mandi, is aggrieved of order dated 17.05.2025, passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-3), whereby he has been transferred form afore School to GSSS, Balag, Mandi. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, because petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. Besides above, it is also submitted at the behest of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner that otherwise on the ground of adverse family circumstances, petitioner is unable to join at the transferred station and as such, ought to have been given some concession in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while transferring him from the present place of posting. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan submitted that petitioner otherwise being from State cadre can be transferred anywhere in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. True it is that petitioner was posted at Trifalghat in October 2022, meaning thereby, he would be completing his normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting in October 2025, but impugned order itself suggests that prior to issuance of impugned transfer order, petitioner has remained posted within the radius of 30 kilometers from the present place of posting. Though petitioner may not have completed normal tenure of posting at present place of 3 posting, but careful perusal of impugned transfer order itself suggests that he has already completed normal tenure of posting for the reason that he has remained posted within the radius of 30 kilometers from the present place of posting. Otherwise also, petitioner shall be completing his normal tenure of posting at the present station in the month of October 2025. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, though this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, as came to be apprised to this Court during proceedings of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days, taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided by the 4 competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 03, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)