1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10980 of 2025 Date of decision: 10.07.2025 Bharti. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Motta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.15902 of 2025 Facts pleaded in the application are taken on record. Application to stand disposed of. CWP No.10980 of 2025 Notice is confined to respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter neither reply is required to be called from respondents No.1 to 3, nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. -2- 2. Petitioner has taken exception to office order dated 01.07.2025, wherein he has been transferred as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) from GSSS Gahlian, District Kangra to GMS Runpu, U/c GSSS Kinnu, District Shimla. The aforesaid order was passed by respondent No.2 in compliance to directions issued in Baby vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1. The said writ petition was instituted by respondent No.4 seeking her adjustment. Under the impugned order, respondent No.4 has been transferred to petitioner’s place. 3. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has already served in the rural area, he has been transferred under the impugned order to GMS Runpu, which is a difficult/rural area and falls in backward panchayat. Bus facility is also not available to reach the school. Petitioner has to walk for considerable length to reach the said school. Petitioner is left with less than 5 years for retirement, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Clause 12.1 of the applicable transfer policy. 4. To a query of the Court about incumbency position of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that w.e.f. 07.04.2017, the petitioner is serving 1 CWP No.10390 of 2025 decided on 28.06.2025. -3- within a distance of 30 kms only. This being the admitted position, petitioner’s transfer from GSSS Gahlian, District Kangra in order to make way for respondent No.4’s adjustment at the said place does not require any interference. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case he is permitted to make a representation invoking Clause 12.1 of the applicable transfer policy, whereafter, the Competent Authority/respondents may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. This is not objected to by learned counsel for the respondents. In view of above submissions and without interfering with transfer of respondent No.4 at GSSS Gahlian, District Kangra under office order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation within 3 days from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and applicable policy within a period of -4- 10 days from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 10th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)