IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10978 of 2025 Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Omi Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Alok Ranjan and Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 and 2, which is waived by Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General. Considering the order being passed hereinafter, neither reply of the petition is required to be called for from the appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.3. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the appearing parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is a Class-IV employee serving in District Chamba in the respondent-AYUSH Department. His grievance is to the office order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) that transfers him from Ayurvedic Health Centre Lohtikri, District Chamba to Ayurvedic Health Wellness Centre Bhariankothi, District Chamba vice respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned office order has been issued only on the basis of a DO/UO Note No.197111, dated 04.06.2025, at the instance of a local politician. To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner has been serving at the same place ever since the year 2013 and as such has completed much more than the normal tenure prescribed in the transfer policy. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner having completed much more than the normal tenure at the present place, is though liable to be transferred, but considering the fact that he is a Class-IV employee, he should not have been transferred to a place, which is at a 3 distance of about 100 kilometers, as this will cause great hardship to him. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as keeping in view petitioner’s incumbency at the present place and without interfering with the impugned office order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) in respect of transfer of the petitioner from Ayurvedic Health Centre Lohtikri, District Chamba and transfer of respondent No.3 to petitioner’s place, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for his suitable adjustment within a week from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of two weeks thereafter. 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 July 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh