IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11289 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Deep Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at Government Central Primary School Upper Tiyari Education Block Garola, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore school to GPS Ludera, E/B Mehala-I, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, without TTA/JA, on account of relaxation of ban on transfer. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rakesh 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kumar Dogra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that on account of the fact that petitioner has already served hard/tribal area for more than seven years, he should not have been transferred to hard area again, rather in terms of Transfer Policy, he ought to have been given station of his choice. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, in any eventuality he is required to be transferred. He states that since petitioner had not indicated any station of his choice, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Though petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but once it is not in dispute that he has already served hard area for more than seven years, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy enables an employee, who has already served hard/tribal area for requisite period i.e. two winters and three summers, to seek transfer/adjustment at a station of his choice, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose 3 of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within three days for his adjustment at a convenient station, which shall be decided within ten days. Ordered accordingly. 5. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly provides certain concessions to employee, who has already served hard/tribal area. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 15, 2025 (Sunil)