2025:HHC:1300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8983 of 2024 Decided on: 07.01.2025 Sh. Prakash Chand … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “i. That Annexure P-2, qua petitioner, may be set aside/ quashed and the respondents may be ordered to allow the petitioner to continue as Patwari in Patwar Circle Antrawali, Tehsil Nerwa, District Shimla, H.P.” 2. When the case was listed on 30.08.2024, the following order was passed:- “CWP No. 8983 of 2024 Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Issue notice to respondent No.3, returnable for 22.10.2024. Steps for service of respondent be taken, within a period of one week. CMP No. 15108 of 2024 Notice in above terms. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in terms of transfer order, has been transferred from PC Antrawali, Tehsil Nerwa to PC Marawag, Tehsil 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1300 Chopal, just after a stay of 2 years and 3 months. He further informs the Court that before being posted at Antrawali, the petitioner was posted at Kalbog, which station was at a distance of more than 60 Kms from Antrawali. As the petitioner has been transferred without permitting him to complete his normal tenure at Antrawali, the operation of the transfer order dated 27.08.2024 is hereby ordered to be stayed qua the petitioner and the private respondent. Department is directed to ensure that the petitioner continues to serve at Antrawali and private respondent at Marawag, dehors whether the parties stand relieved or not.” 3. On the strength of the interim order passed by the Court, the petitioner is continuing at the station of his choice. 4. In the light of the fact that now the petitioner has completed about two years and seven months of service, this petition as prayed for is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner will be allowed to continue to serve at the present station for a normal tenure of three years and thereafter, the respondents shall be at liberty to transfer the him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 07, 2025 (Rishi)