IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10973 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma and Ms. Shivani, Advocates. 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 Patwari at PC Kohala, Tehsil and District Kangra, is aggrieved of order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to PC Sihorballa-II, Sub Tehsil Majheen, District Kangra, vice Mr. Arun Kumar i.e. private-respondent No.4. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order of the petitioner has been passed in violation of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Pradesh, because in terms of Transfer Policy, petitioner could not have been transferred, especially when he was left with less than one year of service. He further submitted that vide impugned transfer order, petitioner has been sent to a station, which is at a distance of 75 kilometers from the present place of posting. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma states that petitioner has been working in and around the present place of posting for so many years and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order, however, representation, if filed by the petitioner, for adjustment a a convenient station on account of the fact that he is nearing retirement, shall be considered in accordance with the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, taking note of the fact that petitioner is left with only one year of service, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, clearly provides that 3 employee with less than two years of service shall not be transferred, rather, would be given station of his choice, this Court sees no impediment, inasmuch as issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, in time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of two days, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one week, taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which provides that employee nearing retirement, shall not be transferred to far-flung area, rather, would be given station of his/her choice. 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 appropriate order. Till the time, representation if filed within a period of two days, is not decided by the competent authority in terms of instant judgment, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. 4 In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)